> "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I hope you don't mind my using this text into the Autoconf doc?
Bob> Not at all. Flattered, in fact. I might like to improve the
Bob> prose so that it flows into the documentation better. Let me
Bob> know if there is any way I can help.
> I hope you don't mind my using this text into the Autoconf doc?
Not at all. Flattered, in fact. I might like to improve the prose so
that it flows into the documentation better. Let me know if there is
any way I can help.
Bob
> --
> > Thomas>
On 13 Mar 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I hope you don't mind my using this text into the Autoconf doc?
No, I don't mind.
I hope you don't mind my using this text into the Autoconf doc?
--
> Thomas> "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy
> Thomas> the ownership of the original file in addition to the
> Thomas> protection)
>
> Do you have refere
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Proulx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 27 January 2002 18:47
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Russ Allbery; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.52g is released
>
> However, you might be thinking of the three atime, ctime
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 11:47:02AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > That's the way that cp -p pretty much always works, if the -p flag is
> > > supported. See, for example, the GNU fileutils documentation:
> >
> > not always (I'm pretty sure that very-old implementations of -p did not
> > copy _al
> > That's the way that cp -p pretty much always works, if the -p flag is
> > supported. See, for example, the GNU fileutils documentation:
>
> not always (I'm pretty sure that very-old implementations of -p did not
> copy _all_ of the attributes, since I had work-arounds in some code for
> that
> Thomas> "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy
> Thomas> the ownership of the original file in addition to the
> Thomas> protection)
>
> Do you have references for this? This is typical information that
> must be double checked and included in autoconf.texi once certifie
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do you have references for this? This is typical information that
> > must be double checked and included in autoconf.texi once certified.
>
> That's the way that cp -p pretty much always works, if the -p
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have references for this? This is typical information that
> must be double checked and included in autoconf.texi once certified.
That's the way that cp -p pretty much always works, if the -p flag is
supported. See, for example, the GNU fileut
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 04:44:28PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Thomas" == Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy
> Thomas> the ownership of the original file in addition to the
> Thomas> protection)
>
> Do you
> "Thomas" == Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy
Thomas> the ownership of the original file in addition to the
Thomas> protection)
Do you have references for this? This is typical information that
must be double ch
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> I had in mind that someone's likely to try to use the same script for
> installing files that use symbolic links.
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining this.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 04:14:58PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> > "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy the ownership
> > of the original file in addition to the protection)
>
> Why is that bad? Those files are typically
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> "cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy the ownership
> of the original file in addition to the protection)
Why is that bad? Those files are typically header files that the
compiler needs to compile the program. If we can live
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 10:35:11AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I think AC_CONFIG_LINKS should try `cp' as the final fallback, if both
> `ln -s' and `ln' fail. Perhaps try `cp -p' before a plain `cp'.
"cp -p" has some unfortunate side-effects (some versions copy the ownership
of the original
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: gnu.utils.bug
> Date: 25 Jan 2002 12:48:15 +0100
>
> We aim at releasing 2.53 within the next months. This is also a call
> for people ready to:
>
> - improve the documentation
> - upgrade existing specific macros
> - import into Autoconf
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> This is also a call for people ready to:
>
> - improve the documentation
Speaking of which, I tried a "make pdf" in the doc directory
on my i686 Linux box and it failed with:
texi2dvi --pdf --batch ./autoconf.texi
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159-14h-released-20010417
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:50:31PM +, John Poltorak wrote:
>
> I'm forwarding this announcement from the Autoconf list in the hope that
> any OS/2 users who have ever tried Autoconf, will give this one a test.
Oops - apologies for that - I pressed G instead of R in mutt...
--
John
I'm forwarding this announcement from the Autoconf list in the hope that
any OS/2 users who have ever tried Autoconf, will give this one a test.
The Autoconf developers are making an attempt to make it cross-platform so
it ought to work on OS/2. So, please try it and report any problems.
With
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.utils.bug as well.
Of course there are still many things that ought to be done in
Autoconf, nevertheless, there is no point in waiting for the day where
Autoconf will be complete (as by definition, there is always
21 matches
Mail list logo
