> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 27, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Should an arg to configure be considered as a --build.
Akim::Alexandre> Yes, so that existing scripts can still run without
Akim::Alexandre> modification.
Ale
On 27 Apr 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Mo" == Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mo> Why does autoconf require another program to install?
>
> Because you're referring to the CVS tarball, hence you shall be ready
> to be in position of a maintainer. Autoconf, once completely pack
Okay, so I don't claim to know a thing about cross-compilation, but the
current confusion around these parts doesn't help either. So let's pose
this question: How do you *define* a cross-compilation situation, at least
for the purposes of the Autoconf environment? Among the suggestions were:
1) b
I don't think your patch is right: you are hiding a problem. I think
`missing' should not exit 0 when it doesn't know what to do, but
I suppose this is debatable.
IMHO the right patch is to teach `help2man' to `missing'. It does
need to know a lot about it, the most important being --output.
I tested out this patch and it seems to be working just fine for me.
Here is the output I get.
% ~/project/mod_jikes/jikes/src/configure --prefix=/tmp/jikes \
--host=i386-mingw32msvc
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... i386-pc-mingw32msvc
checking for c++.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> What is the MANUFACTURER aka VENDOR field in a canonicalization triple
> meant to contain?
AFAIC, it has always been pretty useless, especially since the
config.guess maintainers don't seem to be very sure about it themselves
and change it back and fo
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Okay, so I don't claim to know a thing about cross-compilation,
Peter> but the current confusion around these parts doesn't help
Peter> either.
2 * likewise :)
Here is my understanding, plus some of my opinion (forged by list
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> IMHO the right patch is to teach `help2man' to `missing'. It
Akim> does need to know a lot about it, the most important being
s/does/doesn't/, sorry.
Akim> --output.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Okay, so I don't claim to know a thing about cross-compilation, but the
> current confusion around these parts doesn't help either. So let's pose
> this question: How do you *define* a cross-compilation situation, at least
> for the purposes of the A
OK to commit? Ian, do you think this is right?
Akim
Index: ChangeLog
===
RCS file: /cvs/autoconf/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.564
diff -u -r1.564 ChangeLog
--- ChangeLog 2000/04/28 09:46:55 1.564
+++ ChangeLog
Since we're already on a roll regarding removing unsupported options from
the --help output, I have a few more for you:
|Fine tuning of the installation directories:
| --bindir=DIR user executables [EPREFIX/bin]
| --sbindir=DIR system admin executables [EPREFIX/sbin]
| --lib
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Does this seem feasible?
Very much.
I share the opinion that too long a configure --help is painful,
nevertheless, on this precise case it is the additional burden that we
put on the maintainer which makes me little excited wi
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps this is a stupid idea, but what about some kind of
config.compare script that takes two arguments (the $host and the $build)
and figures out if the two are "really the same" or if a cross compil
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:12:31 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1) build != host -- That won't work because firstly config.sub isn't quite
that smart to guarantee lexical equalness in all cases, the problem often
being the vendor part being kinda random.
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 12:36 PM
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Definition of cross-compiling
>
>
> - Ideal cross compiling situation:
> The user said --host. This gives a bette
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Ideal cross compiling situation:
> The user said --host. This gives a better control than build != host.
what if I'm specifying --host because for some reason I
don't like the string that config.guess comes up with?
for instance, I'm building on a sparc-
From: Felix Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:19:00 -0700
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Ideal cross compiling situation:
> The user said --host. This gives a better control than build != host.
what if I'm specifying --host because for some reason I
Quoth Mo DeJong:
> It seems clear that the AC_TRY_RUN does not have an argument for
> the cross compile case. Can we at least get agreement that this
> AC_C_BIGENDIAN macro is in fact broken?
How about a new macro AC_C_ENDIANNESS that produces "big-endian",
"little-endian", or "don't know"?
--
Quoth Akim Demaille:
> First of all, there are still no easy means to compare two versions
> and decide which one is the most recent.
Well ...
| $ ./config.guess --version
| i586-pc-linux
One could probably easily use $Date$ or $Revision$ from CVS for arranging
this. The problem, however, is t
On 28 Apr 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I don't think your patch is right: you are hiding a problem. I think
> `missing' should not exit 0 when it doesn't know what to do, but
Ok, I will debate this. The script does print "WARNING:" not
"ERROR : I dont know what to do". I would think that a wa
Akim> Or else, it should be Automake who should communicate something
Akim> to Autoconf. That's a new situation. Maybe Automake could
Akim> create an m4 file with all the directories it needs. Kinda
Akim> bizarre, it never happened before.
I don't want to do this in automake.
It would mean re-
21 matches
Mail list logo
