Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-20 Thread Akash Rawal
On 04/18/2017 02:32 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote: I have some problems with bootstrapping. On Solaris it's: ./bootstrap ./bootstrap: syntax error at line 91: `me_=$' unexpected I experience this as well and use 'bash ./bootstrap'. Autoconf manual says $(...) style command substitution is less

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-18 Thread Tim Rühsen
On 04/18/2017 12:57 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote: > On 04/18/2017 04:27 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> I copiled a folder with bootstrapped wget to the Solaris box, but as >> expected I ended up with: >> >>> ldd src/wget >> libsocket.so.1 =>/lib/libsocket.so.1 >> libnsl.so.1 =>

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-18 Thread Tim Rühsen
Hi Mojca, On 04/18/2017 04:27 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 16 April 2017 at 18:54, Tim Rühsen wrote: >> >> Please make sure, you test with latest wget git. > > I have some problems with bootstrapping. > > On Solaris it's: > >> ./bootstrap > ./bootstrap: syntax error at line 91: `me_=$'

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-17 Thread Mojca Miklavec
On 16 April 2017 at 18:54, Tim Rühsen wrote: > > Please make sure, you test with latest wget git. I have some problems with bootstrapping. On Solaris it's: > ./bootstrap ./bootstrap: syntax error at line 91: `me_=$' unexpected On Mac it's: sed: 1: "lib/unicase/special-cas ...": extra

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-16 Thread Tim Rühsen
On Sonntag, 16. April 2017 10:00:05 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 16 April 2017 at 09:27, Tim Rühsen wrote: > > The question was more on which OpenCWS machine did you test (you said you > > are using the same build platform !? on 'unstable10x' was my test, > > libraries have been automatically

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-16 Thread Tim Rühsen
On Sonntag, 16. April 2017 10:00:05 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 16 April 2017 at 09:27, Tim Rühsen wrote: > > The question was more on which OpenCWS machine did you test (you said you > > are using the same build platform !? on 'unstable10x' was my test, > > libraries have been automatically

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-16 Thread Mojca Miklavec
On 16 April 2017 at 09:27, Tim Rühsen wrote: > > The question was more on which OpenCWS machine did you test (you said you are > using the same build platform !? on 'unstable10x' was my test, libraries have > been automatically detected). Yes, unstable10x. I suspect unstable10s would have the

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-16 Thread Tim Rühsen
On Sonntag, 16. April 2017 00:24:22 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 16 April 2017 at 00:07, Tim Rühsen wrote: > > On Samstag, 15. April 2017 22:36:33 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm experiencing a recent regression in wget builds. It worked fine in > >> version 1.17.1 and it

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-15 Thread Mojca Miklavec
On 16 April 2017 at 00:07, Tim Rühsen wrote: > On Samstag, 15. April 2017 22:36:33 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm experiencing a recent regression in wget builds. It worked fine in >> version 1.17.1 and it fails now with 1.19.1. >> >> We configure wget with >> >> --enable-ipv6

Re: [Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-15 Thread Tim Rühsen
On Samstag, 15. April 2017 22:36:33 CEST Mojca Miklavec wrote: > Hi, > > I'm experiencing a recent regression in wget builds. It worked fine in > version 1.17.1 and it fails now with 1.19.1. > > I can do some bisection, but I guess I could blame at least the > following commit: > >

[Bug-wget] Problems with (not) building wget against libiconv

2017-04-15 Thread Mojca Miklavec
Hi, I'm experiencing a recent regression in wget builds. It worked fine in version 1.17.1 and it fails now with 1.19.1. I can do some bisection, but I guess I could blame at least the following commit: