Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Eric Blake
On 10/13/2010 07:07 PM, Miles Bader wrote: Miles Bader writes: Does it matter that autoconf/general.m4, autoconf/status.m4, and autotest/general.m4 wrap PACKAGE_BUGREPORT in< ...> in their messages? Would look a bit ugly as>. Perhaps they shouldn't do such wrapping, although I suppose it's

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Miles Bader
Miles Bader writes: >> Does it matter that autoconf/general.m4, autoconf/status.m4, and >> autotest/general.m4 wrap PACKAGE_BUGREPORT in < ... > in their messages? >> Would look a bit ugly as >. > > Perhaps they shouldn't do such wrapping, although I suppose it's up to > the package authors, as th

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Miles Bader
Ralf Wildenhues writes: > Does it matter that autoconf/general.m4, autoconf/status.m4, and > autotest/general.m4 wrap PACKAGE_BUGREPORT in < ... > in their messages? > Would look a bit ugly as >. Perhaps they shouldn't do such wrapping, although I suppose it's up to the package authors, as they d

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 05:02:18PM CEST: > This bit of NEWS from 2.68 is probably relevant then: > > ** AC_INIT again allows URLs with '?' for its BUG-REPORT argument. >Regression introduced in 2.66. > > It doesn't mention '<' or '>', but those are also characters that > fa

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Miles Bader
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> What does this warning mean?  What's wrong with my bug-reporting >> address... is this a bug? > > Which version of autoconf?  Does it still happen with 2.68? 2.67 (it's been happening for a while, not sure what version it started with) I'l

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Eric Blake
On 10/13/2010 08:50 AM, Miles Bader wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote: What does this warning mean? What's wrong with my bug-reporting address... is this a bug? Which version of autoconf? Does it still happen with 2.68? 2.67 (it's been happening for a while, not

Re: AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Eric Blake
On 10/13/2010 02:55 AM, Miles Bader wrote: I use AC_INIT like: AC_INIT([blarghhh], [0.0001], [Miles Bader]) but this many (although not very edifying) complaints from various autotools: $ autoreconf configure.ac:1: warning: AC_INIT: not a literal: Miles Bader configure.ac:1: wa

AC_INIT bug-address question

2010-10-13 Thread Miles Bader
I use AC_INIT like: AC_INIT([blarghhh], [0.0001], [Miles Bader ]) but this many (although not very edifying) complaints from various autotools: $ autoreconf configure.ac:1: warning: AC_INIT: not a literal: Miles Bader configure.ac:1: warning: AC_INIT: not a literal: Miles Bader