On 04/14/2010 07:34 AM, frank.pie...@bigstring.com wrote: > Hello, autoconf-group! > > I did try to make an autoconf-installation from source. > I did fail because of I need autoconf to make autoconf.
This is not a bug. The proper means for bootstrapping the development version of autoconf is indeed to install a tarball of autoconf. The tarball does NOT depend on pre-installed autoconf; only the development tree. > I did experience a lot of irregular thinkgs in internet. > May be my version was anyway "customized" and > the mentioned close-looped depency of autoconf > concerns just my personal version I have. I did get > it via: > > #> git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/autoconf Yes, that is the correct way to get the development tree. But unless you plan on developing autoconf and submitting patches, it is probably overkill, and you can instead just download a recent tarball from http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/autoconf/ and be done with it. 2.65 is the latest release. > > I would really like to hear any reflection to this obscure matter > though can understand that this matter is that "funny" It is neither obscure (we have documented it in README-hacking, as you yourself quoted) nor funny (it was an intentional decision to make development of autoconf require the prior installation of a release tarball). In fact, it serves as a great litmus test for weeding out people who are less-than-serious about actually contributing to the project - by demonstrating that you are technically savvy enough to follow the directions and bootstrap a development tree, you have already given yourself a leg up when it comes to having others accept patches from you. By the way, your email was littered with lots of html junk. On technical lists, the preferred medium is plain text. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
