RE: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Tim Van Holder
> > Tim> And as for the autoheader problem: is it supposed to fail > > Tim> silently (as it does for me), > > > > No, it should not. > OK - I'll look into possible problems (I expect there'll be some issue > with FDs/redirection again). For further evidence, is autoheader > supposed to clean up a

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Tim Van Holder
> (NOTE: This is with a fresh aclocal.m4 but > a configure.in stripped of changequotes; there may be similar > showstoppers in the stock configure.in). Actually, just checked and the macro I posted is the only one causing problems for the current autoconf in gcc.

RE: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Tim Van Holder
> Again, I think it is just miscommunication. I really understood > `changequote is broken' (which is likely since we do redefine it), > while it should read `people were used to change arbitrarily the > quotes, i.e., change deeply the environment and were expecting the > macros invoked in betwee

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tim> As for Akim's statement: changequote is clearly to blame here; is Tim> there no way for autoconf to detect such problems before invoking Tim> m4? Again, I think it is just miscommunication. I really understood `changequote is broken

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Tim Van Holder
> you have to code-around it rather than simply remove them > (can escape '[' by '[[', for instance). Hmm - allow me to exclaim 'Duh!'. I guess I should've been more precise: "I removed all changequote's, replaced the replacement quotes by [/] and doubled existing [/]'s where appropriate. This

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-10 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 05:06:33PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: : FWIW: I am also seeing random problems related to AC_PROG_CPP : (AC_PROG_CPP picking up /lib/cpp if using a cross-compiler, : sometimes I see AC_PROG_CPP being invoked twice). Unfortunately I am Autoconf has always been good at pic

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
Hi Ralf! > "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Steven> Yes, I was kind of assuming that the immediate bug-patch queue Steven> would be flushed first. The above patch (using AC_REQUIRE Steven> instead of calling a macro directly) seems correct, simple, Steven> and safe. >>

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-10 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Akim Demaille wrote: > > > "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Steven> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> How about fixing this one > >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2001-05/msg7.html? > > Steven> Yes, I was kind of assuming that the immediate bug-patch

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Steven> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> How about fixing this one >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2001-05/msg7.html? Steven> Yes, I was kind of assuming that the immediate bug-patch queue Steven> would be flushed first.

RE: changes to get package to work with autoconf 2.49cvs

2001-05-10 Thread Neulinger, Nathan
Great. Removing those dnl's fixed it. Y'all might want to add a note to docs about that type of thing, cause I'm pretty sure I've seen mention of that type of syntax in autoconf docs or something before, but I may be wrong. Thanks! -- Nathan > -Original Message- > From: Akim Demaille [m

Re: changes to get package to work with autoconf 2.49cvs

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
/tmp/ethereal-0.8.17 % ace nostromo 15:37 configure.in:28: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times configure.in:2: error: undefined macro: dnl /tmp/ethereal-0.8.17 % grep -w dnl -C3 configure nostromo Err 1 cat >conf

Re: changes to get package to work with autoconf 2.49cvs

2001-05-10 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:37:32PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: : > "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger writes: : : Nathan> In particular, with autoconf I keep getting the error saying: : : Nathan> configure.in:2: error: undefined macro: dnl : : Nathan> Any ideas? : : Yep, send the top of configu

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Thomas" == Thomas E Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> check/see if it (gcc's configure script) uses changequote(). Thomas> That feature is broken in the current alpha versions of Thomas> autoconf, has been reported a few times (and shows up with Thomas> this symptom). Akim> No Th

Re: changes to get package to work with autoconf 2.49cvs

2001-05-10 Thread Nathan Neulinger
Akim Demaille wrote: > > > "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger writes: > > Nathan> In particular, with autoconf I keep getting the error saying: > > Nathan> configure.in:2: error: undefined macro: dnl > > Nathan> Any ideas? > > Yep, send the top of configure.in. I'll paraphrase it: # som

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Thomas E. Dickey
On 10 May 2001, Akim Demaille wrote: > > "Thomas" == Thomas E Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thomas> check/see if it (gcc's configure script) uses changequote(). > Thomas> That feature is broken in the current alpha versions of > Thomas> autoconf, has been reported a few times (and sh

Re: changes to get package to work with autoconf 2.49cvs

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger writes: Nathan> In particular, with autoconf I keep getting the error saying: Nathan> configure.in:2: error: undefined macro: dnl Nathan> Any ideas? Yep, send the top of configure.in.

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-10 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Thomas" == Thomas E Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> check/see if it (gcc's configure script) uses changequote(). Thomas> That feature is broken in the current alpha versions of Thomas> autoconf, has been reported a few times (and shows up with Thomas> this symptom). No Thomas,

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-10 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:47:27PM -0400, Steven G. Johnson wrote: : Ralf Corsepius wrote: : > How about fixing this one : > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2001-05/msg7.html? : : Yes, I was kind of assuming that the immediate bug-patch queue would be : flushed first. The above