On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 23:30 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> I guess you're saying here that the definition is not strict enough to
> prevent abuses, right?
Yes, of IANAL :).
-Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
__
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 20:46 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> We hope that this new exception will help make Autoconf's licensing a
> little more clear and robust -- if also a little more verbose -- in the
> same way that GPLv3 has done for the entire free software community. We
> are interested i
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 05:05, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> As far as I can see, this is a bug in 'patch', as 'patch' currently
> violates POSIX in this respect.
> <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utili
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 16:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > autoconf (more precisely autom4te AFAICT) isn't hardlink safe..
> >
> > That is, if I have a two or three source trees hardlinked together (to
> > save sp
autoconf (more precisely autom4te AFAICT) isn't hardlink safe..
That is, if I have a two or three source trees hardlinked together (to
save space) with only differing source files not linked, running
autoconf leaves configure (and possibly other files) still hardlinked.
This means that editing con
Always create the gui makefile.
Use a configure substitution to change the value of SUBDIRS, and use
DIST_SUBDIRS to ensure that all the code gets distributed.
Rob
I think there are valid points to both the 'tools don't clean up after
themselves' and the 'autoconf and automake shouldn't be in lockstep'
arguments.
IMO autoconf will make life easier for both automake and non-automake
users by providing a clean capability of it's own. That in itself should
mak
> -Original Message-
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Gary V. Vaughan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cygwin libtool breakage
>
>
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Monday 04 June 2001 2:22 am, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > -Orig
- Original Message -
From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: cygwin libtool br
The two attached files are macros for configuring a compiler
respectively, enable WIN32 support or disable WIN32 support.
They both have a high level interface that sets CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS and
CPPFLAGS and a low level interface that sets [NO]WIN32FLAGS for use in
projects that override CFLAGS/CPPFLA
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> >>>
Must be an oddity with my install then.
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Re:
This has the AC_REQUIRE autoconf problem fixed (thanks Akim). However if
the user doesn't put AC_PROG_CC in anyway, the output looks like:
configure: creating cache /dev/null
checking for a BSD compatible install... /bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for ma
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
> >>>
, 1996, 1999, 2000
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "
This should be ok now. With 2 exceptions:
the AC_REQUIRE lines were causing a problem - so I've dnl'd them barring
some feedback from a more m4 knowedgable person.
I'm a little unsure whether overriding both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS is a
good idea, but the reason is that non automake makefile.in's ma
CTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:56:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >So in a nutshell, becaus
- Original Message -
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:20 AM
S
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:12:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:54:01AM +1100, Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
&
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> AC_
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> | >
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> | Hopefu
Hopefully this is it (barring a rename on the high level interface.
I missed the CPPFLAGS in the last version..
If you're code is portable this is effective with a simple
AC_API_WIN32
Rob
acinclude.m4
- Original Message -
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re:
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subje
This has a better test that ; a high level interface and two
low level interfaces.
I had _no_ idea what the high level interface should be called, so I
called it AC_API_WIN32 - please suggest a better name.
The low level interface sets WIN32FLAGS to the needed flags for that
language (but doesn'
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:05 AM
S
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:2
I just went and looked at the AC_LANG stuff properly - to support that
properly it seems like I need to choose
_which_ variables get altered on the basis of the current stack value,
or go with language specific functions.
Whats better? Is it worth supporting the AC_LANG for this essentially
non-u
just a note: another reason that LDFLAGS etc aren't changed, is that
it's not needed:
(from the gcc specs file entry *cpp:
%{mwin32:-DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D__WIN32 -D__WIN32__ -DWINNT -idirafter
/usr/include/w32api}
)
Of course it may need to change in the future..
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:13 PM
S
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
> Robert> It looks like the cc result is not used from cache - so I
> Robert> don't thi
- Original Message -
From: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Akim Demaille"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:33 PM
S
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | > My opinion is that AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 should contain an AC_REQUIRE
of
> | > AC_CANONICAL_HOST, and should ensure the case $host itself.
> |
> | Why?
>
> To make it easier to read and write where it is used.
Ok. Lets s
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I suggest separating `test for features and display results&#x
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
> | Sampl
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Mar 14, 2
Ok,
version 2.. returns true/false now. I've also updated te sample code
to reflect this
... updated email ...
I've put together a autoconf macro to configure CC to include the Win32
API, if it is available. I've only put in the methods _I know of and can
test_, more fallback tests are welcom
Thanks. I'll do a new one up with that change (and any others suggested
in the meantime). It's quite late where I am (1:30 am) so that'll be
tomorrow :]
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins"
I've put together a autoconf macro to configure CC to include the Win32
API, if it is available. I've only put in the methods _I know of and can
test_, more fallback tests are welcome.
Sample code to use it in configure.in, when the program _needs_ the
win32 API:
AC_CANONICAL_HOST
case "${host}
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:49:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >cygwin, win32
> >cygwin, nowin32
> >no cygwin (aka mingw32), win32
> >no cygwin, nowin32
>
> -mno-c
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Charles S. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christopher Faylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Charles S. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Detecting the need for -mwin32 in newer cy
47 matches
Mail list logo
