[removed autoconf-patches from the cc list]
Hello all,
I'm answering the easy questions to save some of Paul's time.
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:15:07AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [...] a patched variant of the same version of Autoconf we use today.
ok, then grab the tarball of the Aut
FWIW, I think we should only use a new Autoconf if it is a patched
variant of the same version of Autoconf we use today.
I too would be in favor of using a patched Autoconf -- or just applying
the same change directly to the configure file.
___
> From: Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:37:34 -0700
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], autoconf@gnu.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Perhaps the simplest thing is to generate a new Autoconf version? You
> could then install and use that. It should not take much time for me
> to gener
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you. Can you help us regenerate the Emacs configure file
> using this patch?
Sure.
Perhaps the simplest thing is to generate a new Autoconf version? You
could then install and use that. It should not take much time for me
to generate a new
Thank you. Can you help us regenerate the Emacs configure file
using this patch?
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this condition does not mean that configuring will fail,
> and does not indicate a bug, would you please make the message say so?
Sure. I installed the following patch into Autoconf.
Also, this indicates a bug in zsh, which I have reproduced. I
=none autolearn=failed
version=3.1.0
From: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: emacs-22.0.99 configure problem]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:53:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Richard Stallm
