On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Mo DeJong wrote: > I am still confused about what situation would actually > call for AC_CANONICAL_BUILD without also calling > AC_CANONICAL_HOST? Well, there are some deeply twisted packages that have not seen the full Autoconf light that rely on this sort of thing for convenience, such as picking appropriate options to certain system tools used while building, where writing a proper test is not very rewarding. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Paul Berrevoets
- 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) Christopher Seawood
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- 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) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- 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) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Mo DeJong
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Alexandre Oliva