On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 19:53 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-03-28 13:57, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > From a regression/failure point of view, the worrying issue is the
> > gpgme/mpg123 issue on x32 which also appears for musl 32 and 64 bit x86
> > targets.
> >
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproje
o-worker/musl-qemux86-64/build/meta/recipes-support/gpgme/gpgme_1.18.0.bb:do_compile
Also, which version of musl? If it's a musl snapshot from git, I think
that's expected because of the LFS changes they made.
I couldn't find the full logs either, just what Paul noted. I didn't
pok
On 2023-03-28 13:57, Richard Purdie wrote:
From a regression/failure point of view, the worrying issue is the
gpgme/mpg123 issue on x32 which also appears for musl 32 and 64 bit x86
targets.
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/64/builds/6881/steps/11/logs/stdio
https://autob
On 2023-03-28 09:12, Frederic Berat wrote:
Regarding EGREP, although I agree in principle this can be solved by using
AS_CASE, I'd argue that the component actually required AC_PROG_EGREP.
Just following up on this since I see that I didn't reply to everybody
in this thread. Today I installe
Please don't top-post on this mailing list.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, at 1:21 PM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> I need to have a closer look at 'kguitar', but there is likely a
> problem in the configure.in file too:
>./configure: line 27629: syntax error near unexpected token `fi'
>./configure: lin
Hi,
I'm done walking through the Fedora rebuilds, I get the following failures
due to largefile.m4 which breaks with autoconf:
ImageMagick 1:7.1.1.4
emacs 1:28.2
grub2 2.06
gzip 1.12
libidn 1.41
libloc 0.9.16
make 4.4
parted 3.5
pspp 1.6.2
rcs 5.10.1
Indirectly: 'fatresize' (1.1.0) has a bug in
On Wed, 2023-03-29 at 01:53 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > We run autoreconf against most things.
> > > ...
> > > gettext 0.21.1:
> > > ...
> >
> > The latter two look like they're as I'm missing the gnulib fixes to
> > largefile.m4.
>
> autoreconf is not supported in GN
Richard Purdie wrote:
> > We run autoreconf against most things.
> > ...
> > gettext 0.21.1:
> > ...
>
> The latter two look like they're as I'm missing the gnulib fixes to
> largefile.m4.
autoreconf is not supported in GNU gettext; there's a script 'autogen.sh'
instead.
When I run this script o
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 09:03 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 7:23 AM Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > I was able to work around the EGREP_TRADITIONAL issue by reordering
> > macros. The issue is conditional code blocks which mean
> > EGREP_TRADITIONAL was not set in some configure o
Please don't top-post on this mailing list.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, at 12:12 PM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> Regarding EGREP, although I agree in principle this can be solved by
> using AS_CASE, I'd argue that the component actually required
> AC_PROG_EGREP. In principle, that should be enough, and requ
Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 09:18 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:44 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 08:38 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > > We're overdue for a new release, so he
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 7:23 AM Richard Purdie
wrote:
> I was able to work around the EGREP_TRADITIONAL issue by reordering
> macros. The issue is conditional code blocks which mean
> EGREP_TRADITIONAL was not set in some configure option combinations
> leading to obtuse failures.
>
> Our testing
I was able to work around the EGREP_TRADITIONAL issue by reordering
macros. The issue is conditional code blocks which mean
EGREP_TRADITIONAL was not set in some configure option combinations
leading to obtuse failures.
Our testing so far shows the following three sets of issues.
Macro ordering
7 at 08:38 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> > > for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> > > been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c and
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 09:18 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:44 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 08:38 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> > >
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:44 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 08:38 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> > for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> >
On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 08:38 -0700, Jim Meyering wrote:
> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c and
> has
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 2:49 PM Václav Haisman wrote:
> On 27. 03. 23 17:38, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> > for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> > been an autoconf-
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:18 AM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> > for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> > bee
On 3/27/23 10:16, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Compatibility with compilers that reject unprototyped function declarations
should maybe get a more prominent NEWS entry.
I gave that a shot by installing the attached.From 5ffc09fca39de051537fbebd7c6c33d5255a520f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Egger
On 3/27/23 14:49, Václav Haisman wrote:
Curious amounts of things getting wrapped in case/esac but I am assuming
that's intentional.
Yes it is:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/commit/?id=c8d6d6eb8be36144f1285f35901e325b56bac68f
On 27. 03. 23 17:38, Jim Meyering wrote:
We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c and
has been printing strings like
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 3/27/23 13:45, Sam James wrote:
>> "Zack Weinberg" writes:
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot
On 3/27/23 13:45, Sam James wrote:
>
> "Zack Weinberg" writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in
>>> preparation for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skip
"Zack Weinberg" writes:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
>> for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
>> been an autoconf-2.72 rel
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
> for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
> been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c and
> has
We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c and
has been printing strings like v2.72a-92-g8db00aa8 for years.
If you maintain
grep-3.10 used this version of autoconf, and so far there's been
no indication of trouble, so I'm going to proceed with a snapshot.
But first, there was a test failure, and "make fetch" pulled in
a few small changes, so here are those two diffs, just pushed.
With these, the t
Hello, Akim!
> Any problem? Can we make the snapshot?
Make sure to clean up BUGS. I understand that the problems described there
have been addressed.
Don't forget that "autoconf -Wall" doesn't warn about deprecated use of
AC_OUTPUT, which must be a bug.
You may wan
Any problem? Can we make the snapshot?
> Also, should it search the PATH when:-
>
> checking for a BSD compatible install... ?
> Install.exe is on the path, but configure selects ./install-sh -c
> instead.
Yes it should - but the current CVS autoconf does not do this for
AC_PROG_INSTALL. And even if it does, it always seems to selec
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:28:11PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:30:41PM +, John Poltorak wrote:
> : How do I get the latest version of AUTOCONF using CVS?
>
> cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs login
> cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs co autoconf
Thanks.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:30:41PM +, John Poltorak wrote:
: How do I get the latest version of AUTOCONF using CVS?
cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs login
cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs co autoconf
Lars J
--
Innovation is one percent inspiration and ninetynine percent perspi
How do I get the latest version of AUTOCONF using CVS?
--
John
speak now!
I intend to make it in the end of the French afternoon, i.e., within,
say, 4 hours.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:08:31PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: >>>>> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Lars> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:15:49AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote: :
: Lars> Anyone seeing a show stopper? Let's go for a sn
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:15:49AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote: :
Lars> Anyone seeing a show stopper? Let's go for a snapshot today.
Lars> We're soon a week behind schedule. Hurry up
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:15:49AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Anyone seeing a show stopper? Let's go for a snapshot today.
We're soon a week behind schedule. Hurry up guys! ;-)
How about this wednesday, making it an odd week?
Lars J
--
Innovation is one percent inspi
Anyone seeing a show stopper? Let's go for a snapshot today.
I intend to make the 2.49b snapshot this (French) afternoon. I still
have to apply a couple of patches, one for config.*, and another for
AT_CHECK (the one which is waiting to be debated. I'm applying it
anyway because it makes the test suite more robust. If someone
doesn't agree
40 matches
Mail list logo
