Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:19:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ok, I see your point about using AC_CANONICAL_BUILD, but is there any reason that someone would want to use AC_CANONICAL_HOST without having it AC_REQUIRE() AC_CANONICAL_BUILD? If $host defaults to $build, as we have been discussing, then logically AC_CANONICAL_HOST will have to AC_REQUIRE AC_CANONICAL_BUILD. Ian
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ralf Corsepius
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Mo DeJong
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Mo DeJong
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ralf Corsepius
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor