Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net> writes: > > [funky automake version numbers] > >>When in doubt, use sort -V from the latest coreutils: >> >> $ printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V >> automake-1.10.1 >> automake-1.10a > > That's not the result I get: > > % printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V > automake-1.10a > automake-1.10.1 > % sort --version | head -n 1 > sort (GNU coreutils) 7.0.11-5996-dirty
Oh! I was using a just-too-old (pre-7.0) version there. Thanks for checking and keeping me honest. IMHO this means automake is muddying the waters by giving something-newer-than automake-1.10.1 the version string "1.10a". >>I don't want to maintain yet another package-specific file/script, >>so I've been toying with the idea of adding generic code to >>bootstrap that would automatically determine more prerequisites >>like this. E.g., if it sees that gperf will be used by this >>package, then it'd ensure it's usable. > > Wouldn't it be simpler to include a file bootstrap.required_progs containing a > list one per line and then have something like > > if test -e bootstrap.required_progs; then > for p in `cat bootstrap.required_progs`; do > if ! $p --help >/dev/null; then > echo You must install $p > exit 1 > fi > done > done > > Autodetecting them seems a bit baroque, but I guess you could grep -r or > something... Ok. That seems simple enough. And you could even put the list in the already-pkg-specific bootstrap.conf file. Ready to write the patch? ;-) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
