> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 1. Make sure divert push/pop are balanced.
Here are my first results, before and after applying the fix, on Jim's
files.
/tmp/fileutils-4.0.37 % time ace nostromo 15:07
configure.in:81
con
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Darn, I jinxed it with yesterdays post...
Actually you are concerned only if somewhere you have passed a single
quoted set of includes not terminating with a new line: the `#' eats
the closing paren.
Apply this.
? acgeneral.m4.ann
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:46:34PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: do not use it.
Darn, I jinxed it with yesterdays post...
Lars J
--
Innovation is one percent inspiration and ninetynine percent perspiration,
and in my case; twice that... -- Norville Barnes, `The Hudsucker Proxy'
do not use it.
>
> > John, thanks for the patch. Don't hesitate to send its siblings (that
> > of autoupdate, autoreconf, autoscan, autoheader and ifnames :) :) :)
>
> Here is a patch for the siblings. I also reverted the two `|| exit'
> commands in autoconf.sh to `|| { (exit 1); exit; }' because I had one
>
>
> > John, thanks for the patch. Don't hesitate to send its siblings (that
> > of autoupdate, autoreconf, autoscan, autoheader and ifnames :) :) :)
>
> Here is a patch for the siblings. I also reverted the two `|| exit'
> commands in autoconf.sh to `|| { (exit 1); exit; }' because I had one
>
> John, thanks for the patch. Don't hesitate to send its siblings (that
> of autoupdate, autoreconf, autoscan, autoheader and ifnames :) :) :)
Here is a patch for the siblings. I also reverted the two `|| exit'
commands in autoconf.sh to `|| { (exit 1); exit; }' because I had one
test failure u
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Possibly `(exit $?); exit' could be simplified to just `exit'.
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. Sorry, I missed that in my earlier scan.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Paul Eggert wrote:
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Possibly `(exit $?); exit' could be simplified to just `exit'.
>
> Yes, that's correct. Sorry, I missed that in my earlier scan.
I seem to recall
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Possibly `(exit $?); exit' could be simplified to just `exit'.
Yes, that's correct. Sorry, I missed that in my earlier scan.
> Thanks. Given that Paul approved it, I'll apply it, but I confess I
> don't understand this part of the patch. Paul, could you explain it
> to me? In fact it seems wrong to me.
>
> --- autoconf.sh.orig Wed Aug 9 13:06:15 2000
> +++ autoconf.sh Thu Aug 10 17:09:46 2000
> @@ -234,7 +23
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Aug 10, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep, I thought about a similar thing, but I find it rather complex.
>> In addition, it opens the door to too many dirty tricks
Alexandre> Which is not necessar
> "John" == John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> OK. Here is a revised patch.
Thanks. Given that Paul approved it, I'll apply it, but I confess I
don't understand this part of the patch. Paul, could you explain it
to me? In fact it seems wrong to me.
--- autoconf.sh.orig
>
>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Here is a patch to correct the exit status of autoconf under hpux shells.
>
> Most of that patch is OK, but the hunks quoted below can be
> simplified. Just replace the "exit 2" with "e
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here is a patch to correct the exit status of autoconf under hpux shells.
Most of that patch is OK, but the hunks quoted below can be
simplified. Just replace the "exit 2" with "exit", and similar
Here is a patch to correct the exit status of autoconf under hpux shells.
I have tested it under hpux 10.20 and i686 linux.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)
2000-08-10 J. D
On Aug 10, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I thought about a similar thing, but I find it rather complex.
> In addition, it opens the door to too many dirty tricks
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO :-)
> We have to think about autoupdate too.
Wouldn't it work just
> Please, do not answer to me only, send all this to bug-autoconf or to
> autoconf@. For the time being, I don't want to change anything in
> Autoconf, I want to have a snapshot RSN. Then in September, when I'm
> back from vacation, when there will be enough feedback about this
> snapshot, we wi
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> I have an idea. We could create AC_DEFUN_HOOK, so that we
Alexandre> could use it like this:
Alexandre> AC_DEFUN_HOOK([AM_OLD_NAME],[AC_ALIAS([AM_OLD_NAME],[AC_NEW_NAME])])
Alexandre> AC_DEFUN would then run
Alexandre>
> "John" == John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Akim,
Hi!
John> I assume the problem is for AM_FUNC_ERROR_AT_LINE, not
John> AM_FUNC_ERROR.
Yeah, sorry, it was a shorthand. It actually applies to nearly all
the AM macros.
John> As far as I can see, Jim doesn't define A
On Aug 9, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this definitely means Autoconf 2.50 must not obsolete the
> symbols from Automake until an Automake with quoted macro names is
> released. This problem is a good means to have Mike shot in Joe's
> foot.
I have an idea. We coul
Akim,
I assume the problem is for AM_FUNC_ERROR_AT_LINE, not AM_FUNC_ERROR.
As far as I can see, Jim doesn't define AC_FUNC_ERROR at all. The is
an AC_REQUIRE([AM_FUNC_ERROR_AT_LINE]) in jm-macros.m4. The actual
definition for AM_FUNC_ERROR_AT_LINE appears to come from aclocal/error.m4
in autom
> "John" == John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On a different subject, in trying to use autoconf-2.14a to
John> regenerate configure for fileutils-4.0x, I get the error
John> _LC_LANG is not defined in AC_LANG_SOURCE. Is this a bug or has
John> there been a change in how thi
> "AD" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AD> I'm lost. You are saying we're right, XEmacs is wrong, right?
Correct.
AD> | I'll just redefine AC_PREREQ(2.13) to be a == test, not a <= test.
AD> Why? Give us a chance to catch up. But first, tell us what use of
AD> SHELL you do.
Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>> I'm curious to know what is so complex about it.
>> Is it something intrinsic to XEmacs?
>> Or a quirk of evolution?
>> Or something else?
> It's mainly because autoconf has been in use in XEmacs for a long time,
> and the level of
Tom Tromey wrote:
> I'm curious to know what is so complex about it.
> Is it something intrinsic to XEmacs?
> Or a quirk of evolution?
> Or something else?
It's mainly because autoconf has been in use in XEmacs for a long
time, and the level of customization we want|like|need is|was not
Tom Tromey wrote:
> I agree that the move to the next autoconf will be hard for you.
Sure. OTOH, I'm rather confident that the hard work, once done, will
lead us to considerably simplify our configure script. Maybe this would also
be a good opportunity for us to start using automake.
--
| Akim> Now, there's a README-alpha which is rather explicit.
|
| Martin> Did you know that this autoconf uses $SHELL instead of
| Martin> ${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh}?
|
| Akim> Where?
|
| (martin@wobble) /usr/share/autoconf $ g -w SHELL acgeneral.m4
| acgeneral.m4:211:SHELL=${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/s
Akim> Now, there's a README-alpha which is rather explicit.
Martin> Did you know that this autoconf uses $SHELL instead of
Martin> ${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh}?
Akim> Where?
(martin@wobble) /usr/share/autoconf $ g -w SHELL acgeneral.m4
acgeneral.m4:211:SHELL=${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh}
acgeneral.m4:69
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> But then, XEmacs's build system is amazingly complex.
I'm curious to know what is so complex about it.
Is it something intrinsic to XEmacs?
Or a quirk of evolution?
Or something else?
T
> "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> (XEmacs redefines AC_DEFINE)
Tom> Wow, why?
Martin> To support the --extra-verbose option
I don't have your failure.
/tmp % cat configure.in
Yipee,
Thanks Martin, it's been too long without huge controversial thread in
here. Foood fiiight!
> "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Did you know that Linux Mandrake 7.0's autoconf claims to be
Martin> version 2.14.1? (martin@wobble) /xemacs/bu
Martin> To support the --extra-verbose option
Why is this important? Can't people just read config.h?
Martin> XEmacs also modifies several of the other basic autoconf
Martin> macros, to disable the _evil_ cache.
The evil cache must be some XEmacs feature, because the cache I use is
distinctly
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin> (XEmacs redefines AC_DEFINE)
> Wow, why?
XEmacs's configure scripts don't behave like normal configure scripts in a
few interesting ways, enough that it doesn't quite "feel" like auto
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> (XEmacs redefines AC_DEFINE)
Tom> Wow, why?
To support the --extra-verbose option
dnl Redefine AC_DEFINE* to provide more output if extra_verbose
dnl Set VARIABLE to VALUE, verbatim, or 1.
dnl AC_DEFINE(VARIABLE [, VALUE])
define([
Tom Tromey writes:
> > "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> Did you know that Linux Mandrake 7.0's autoconf claims to be
> Martin> version 2.14.1?
>
> That's really losing.
>
> Martin> (XEmacs redefines AC_DEFINE)
>
> Wow, why?
XEmacs configure is heavily c
> "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Did you know that Linux Mandrake 7.0's autoconf claims to be
Martin> version 2.14.1?
That's really losing.
Martin> (XEmacs redefines AC_DEFINE)
Wow, why?
Tom
Did you know that Linux Mandrake 7.0's autoconf claims to be version 2.14.1?
(martin@wobble) /xemacs/build $ autoconf --version
Autoconf version 2.14.1
Did you know that this autoconf uses $SHELL instead of ${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh}?
This would fail in the most obvious way if the user's shell was
38 matches
Mail list logo
