On Feb 25, 2000, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Cross-compilation should be turned off unless some autoconf macro
> exists that says "this package is cross-compiler capable".
Agreed.
> If the compiler can't run the compiler test program and this
> special macro isn
%% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2) If you've already tested for C and that decided it _wasn't_
>> cross-compiling, then you test for C++ and it decides you _are_
>> cross-compiling, that should be a fatal error right there, too.
oo> I disagree. I don't think autoconf sho
%% Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pr> Hello, Paul!
>> 1) Cross-compilation should be turned off unless some autoconf macro
>> exists that says "this package is cross-compiler capable". If the
>> compiler can't run the compiler test program and this special macro
>> isn't pre
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 06:02:50PM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> As a package maintainer this is the most common configure-related
> problem _I_ see.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1) Cross-compilation should be turned off unless some autoconf macro
> exists that says "this package is cross-
Hello, Paul!
> 1) Cross-compilation should be turned off unless some autoconf macro
> exists that says "this package is cross-compiler capable". If the
> compiler can't run the compiler test program and this special macro
> isn't present, configuration should fail right there.
Very
All the talk about config.cache (and even some consensus on changing it,
which is encouraging!) induced me to bring up this rant again. It got
little response last time.
I think we should remove the default assumption about cross-compilation
in autoconf.
The number of configure.in scripts that
