> -Original Message-
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:40 PM
> To: Akim Demaille; Bernard Dautrevaux
> Cc: 'Alexandre Oliva'; Jim Meyering; Autoconf List
> Subject: Re: Autoconf Extension Files
>
>
>
On Aug 4, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case the problem is not AMA or m4/*.m4; it's usually fixing some
> macros that wrongly run some tests. Waht in this case IS needed is an
> acllocal-like tool that understand the way the package was built (AMA/split
> files)
On Aug 4, 2000, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
>> the source tree is a simpler and cleaner approach. I think
>> maintaining a single aclocal.m4 is simpler and cleaner.
> I don't quite
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
> the source tree is a simpler and cleaner approach. I think
> maintaining a single aclocal.m4 is simpler and cleaner.
I don't quite see how maintaining one big file is better than (giving the
option o
Akim Demaille writes:
> tar zxvf foo-0.1.tgz
> cd foo-0.1
> autoreconf
>
> and proceed knowing that DESTDIR is supported, config.guess is updated
> (why not, now that we have a means to compare versions) etc.
I sure hope this is not going to happen. config.guess versions just tell
from what day
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We disagree on the room left in between. I think it should remain a
> non Mike-Joe-Hans-Otto-Rand land, he thinks we should offer the means
> to have both includes and inlines. I think it's way too many
> complications, too much documentation to
Hi!
>--[Bernard Dautrevaux]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >--[Alexandre Oliva]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >--[Jim Meyering]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > we'll never be able to go back to a simpler and cleaner approach.
> > The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
> > the source
> "Bernard" == Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Salut Bernard !
Bernard> The problem with the current aclocal.m4, is that if I
Bernard> "aclocal" and the package maintainer use some exotic macros I
Bernard> don't know about, autoconf will just generate a configure
Bernard> scri
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:38 PM
> To: Jim Meyering
> Cc: Akim Demaille; Autoconf List
> Subject: Re: Autoconf Extension Files
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2000, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL P
On Aug 3, 2000, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I said before, Akim's approach is a strict subset of yours, so it is
> obviously simpler *to implement*.
But it's not simpler to use, and that's why I'm fighting so much for
my point. I don't care about what design is easier to imple
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Aug 3, 2000, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > we'll never be able to go back to a simpler and cleaner approach.
|
| The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
| the source tree is a simpler and cleaner approach
On Aug 3, 2000, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we'll never be able to go back to a simpler and cleaner approach.
The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
the source tree is a simpler and cleaner approach. I think
maintaining a single aclocal.m4 is simpler
I'm going to agree with Jim. I like the idea of separate files for different
functions. It's easier to debug and correct that way.
Regards,
Earnie.
--- Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sheesh you guys!
>
> Why don't you do real work instead of arguing about this tiny little
> point.
Sheesh you guys!
Why don't you do real work instead of arguing about this tiny little
point. I suggest you (Alexandre) agree to let Akim change autoreconf
the way he proposed, for now. Then, later, if enough maintainers write
testimonials about how hard it is to have their package distribution
14 matches
Mail list logo
