FYI: autoconf/THANKS

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
This goes in sometime late tomorrow if there's no protests. I've just removed tabulators from THANKS (they're not kosher in such a context for people with other tab-width settings), and lined them up (there was one unaligned email address). Lars J Index: THANKS ===

Re: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 05:46:49PM +0200, Lars J. Aas wrote: : Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Does anyone with good knowledge of the Autoconf history know when config.status became a reality? The list of years above is probably an exaggeration... Lars J

autoupdate --version/--help

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
2001-04-09 Lars J. Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * autoupdate.in (print_usage): print "\ at end of line does not work as expected, so change block to here-doc instead. (print_version): Same. Index: autoupdate.in

Re: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 9, 2001, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another option is to combine the "generated automatically" line with the > command line recital. > generated automatically with [as a side-effect of running] > $ac_hostname\$ ../autoconf/configure Created with the command:

Re: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 9, 2001, "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GNU Autoconf config.status 2.49e > generated automatically by configure, > which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.49e > is better, I think. Agreed. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat G

Re: Spam, Bacon, Eggs & Spam (was: Re: yada $1.4M yada)

2001-04-09 Thread Mike Castle
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 09:43:29PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > The only *fair* thing to do is to block all e-mail from all known and > proven open relays and spam sources. *IFF* this ever causes any Except that there are multiple definitions of "proven open relays" and valid sites get put onto

Re: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 07:23:03PM +0200, Tim Van Holder wrote: : > $ ./config.status --version : > GNU Autoconf config.status 2.49e : > generated automatically by GNU Autoconf configure 2.49e : > which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.49e : > and invoked on nfs.trh.sim.no with the comman

RE: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Tim Van Holder
> $ ./config.status --version > GNU Autoconf config.status 2.49e > generated automatically by GNU Autoconf configure 2.49e > which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.49e > and invoked on nfs.trh.sim.no with the command line > $ ../autoconf/configure Having the verbose name of configure

config.status logging to config.log

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
A side-effect of the recent config.log-related changes in configure caused config.status to stop logging to config.log (fd 5 is directed to /dev/null in the beginning). This patch re-initializes fd 5, but I've moved the config.log logging parts till after having processed the command line options

Re: config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 05:46:49PM +0200, Lars J. Aas wrote: : With the risk of starting another jihad - here goes ;) : : This patch makes the `config.status --version' response conform : with the GNU Coding Standards and follows the convention used for : `configure --version'. The nature of `co

config.status --version

2001-04-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
With the risk of starting another jihad - here goes ;) This patch makes the `config.status --version' response conform with the GNU Coding Standards and follows the convention used for `configure --version'. The nature of `config.status' stretches the version information heading to the limit tho

AC_PROG_INASTALL & specific permissions

2001-04-09 Thread Andrei Ciorici
is there a graceful way to indicate specific permissions for a particular file? best regards, andy

Re: Spam, Bacon, Eggs & Spam (was: Re: yada $1.4M yada)

2001-04-09 Thread Esben Haabendal Soerensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg A. Woods) writes: > That's simply not true at all. All even half-decent MLMs have the > ability to allow posting to explicit addressees without also sending > posts to those addresses. Isn't this functionality normally limited to list administrators ? These poor guys mig