I'm going to agree with Jim. I like the idea of separate files for different functions. It's easier to debug and correct that way. Regards, Earnie. --- Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sheesh you guys! > > Why don't you do real work instead of arguing about this tiny little > point. I suggest you (Alexandre) agree to let Akim change autoreconf > the way he proposed, for now. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Jim Meyering
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Jim Meyering
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Alexandre Oliva
- sh compatibility question Martin Wilck
- Re: sh compatibility question Akim Demaille
- Re: sh compatibility question Pavel Roskin
- Re: sh compatibility question Akim Demaille
- Re: sh compatibility question Martin Wilck
- Re: sh compatibility question Gary V. Vaughan
- RE: Autoconf Extension Files Earnie Boyd
- RE: Autoconf Extension Files Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Akim Demaille
- Re: [autoconf] RE: Autoconf Extension Files Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Earnie Boyd
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Autoconf Extension Files Alexandre Oliva
- RE: Autoconf Extension Files Bernard Dautrevaux