Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do the other Autoconf developers think about this? Safe enough to
apply now, or postpone until after 2.60 (and require the APR people to
keep (ab)using Autoconf internal interfaces, and dragging along a
modified version of the
* Ralf Wildenhues
| Hello Justin, Tollef,
|
| * Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 11:40:12PM CEST:
| On 6/18/06, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Currently, if configure is passed --sbindir=, it just overrides
| $sbindir without flagging that at all. If it, in
On 6/19/06, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues
| Hello Justin, Tollef,
|
| * Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 11:40:12PM CEST:
| On 6/18/06, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Currently, if configure is passed --sbindir=, it just overrides
|
Hello Justin, Tollef, everyone,
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:12:11PM CEST:
The point of our autoconf macro is to allow 'shortcuts', such that the
argument
--with-layout=Foo
rewrites prefix/libexec/etc to a specific set of values (dictated by
our file
(Trimmed Cc list a fair bit)
* Ralf Wildenhues
| Hello Justin, Tollef, everyone,
|
| * Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:12:11PM CEST:
|
| The point of our autoconf macro is to allow 'shortcuts', such that the
| argument
|
| --with-layout=Foo
|
| rewrites
On 6/18/06, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, if configure is passed --sbindir=, it just overrides
$sbindir without flagging that at all. If it, in addition to changing
$sbindir, it'd set ac_param_sbindir either to 1 to show that sbindir
is derviced from a command line
Hello Justin, Tollef,
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 11:40:12PM CEST:
On 6/18/06, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, if configure is passed --sbindir=, it just overrides
$sbindir without flagging that at all. If it, in addition to changing
$sbindir, it'd
On 6/15/06, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apart from the «ewww» factor, why can't it do its work in a subshell
and echo back the parameters to be set and those get eval-ed by
configure?
Yes, something like that might work, given that you know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people: This is Debian bug report #372179, available at
http://bugs.debian.org/372179 . Autoconf sometime after 2.59 changed
the behaviour of AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM in a way that mangles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This
causes problems for APR_PARSE_ARGUMENTS which makes for hilarious
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I too suspect that the apr macros should be fixed to not rely on $@,
but this was a sudden and unannounced change in the Debian packages
without a significant bump in the version number. (Personally, I'd
treat this as an API bump and increase version
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apart from the «ewww» factor, why can't it do its work in a subshell
and echo back the parameters to be set and those get eval-ed by
configure?
Yes, something like that might work, given that you know the values
can't contain ' (though you should
I've seen a flurry of Debian BTS emails around this bug, but none
of them have made it clear to me what I should do about it.
In the long term, I suspect that the Autoconf macros in the
apr-util package should be fixed, and that autoconf-doc should
document that $@ may be changed by some macros.
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the long term, I suspect that the Autoconf macros in the
apr-util package should be fixed, and that autoconf-doc should
document that $@ may be changed by some macros.
I've done the latter by installing the patch at the end of this
message into Autoconf
13 matches
Mail list logo
