Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Mauro Tortonesi
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion? this could be another solution. but i think it would be much better to do it only for kame and usagi stack. Hmm. Checking for stacks by

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion? this could be another solution. but i think it would be much better to do it only for kame and

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Mauro Tortonesi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion? this could be another solution. but i think it

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't the second check a matter of running a small test program, as in the check that Daniel provided (but more sophisticated)? sure. but what was the problem with stack detection? it's simply a couple of AC_EGREP_CPP macros after all... The problem

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Mauro Tortonesi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't the second check a matter of running a small test program, as in the check that Daniel provided (but more sophisticated)? sure. but what was the problem with stack detection? it's simply a couple

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-11 Thread Maciej W. Rozycki
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Mauro Tortonesi wrote: One of the design goals of Autoconf was to avoid the fallacy of older tools that had complex product databases that had to be maintained by hand. Instead, most Autoconf tests try to check for features. The exception are cases when such checks

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-10 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
[ I'm Cc-ing the list because this might be interesting to others. ] Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ok, i agree here. but, in order to help me with my work on wget, could you please tell me: * how do you generate a wget tarball for a new release With the script `dist-wget' in

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-10 Thread Mauro Tortonesi
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: [ I'm Cc-ing the list because this might be interesting to others. ] Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ok, i agree here. but, in order to help me with my work on wget, could you please tell me: * how do you generate a wget tarball for

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-10 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * how do you generate/maintain gettext-related files (e.g. the files in the po directory The `.po' files are from the translation project. POTFILES.IN is generated by hand when a new `.c' file is added. ok, but what about Makefile.in.in and

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-10 Thread Mauro Tortonesi
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * how do you generate/maintain gettext-related files (e.g. the files in the po directory The `.po' files are from the translation project. POTFILES.IN is generated by hand when a new `.c' file

Re: autoconf 2.5 patch for wget

2003-09-10 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AFAIR wget.pot is generated by Makefile. (It should probably not be in CVS, though.) Makefile.in.in is not generated, it was originally adapted from the original Makefile.in.in from the gettext distribution. It has served well for years in the