On Apr 28, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think `missing' should not exit 0 when it doesn't know what to do
Agreed.
> IMHO the right patch is to teach `help2man' to `missing'.
Or adjust autoconf's Makefiles to proceed even if help2man fails.
--
Alexandre OlivaEnjoy Gu
On Apr 28, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that this "missing" script is actually part of
> the automake dist?
It is.
--
Alexandre OlivaEnjoy Guaraná, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat companyaoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Fre
Quoth Ian Lance Taylor:
> This works because build != host only arises when the user does
> something odd. If you are building with a cross-compiler, you should
> use --host. If you are not building with a cross-compiler, you should
> not use --host.
>
> What actual case are you concerned abou
Quoth Akim Demaille:
> 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 with this.
No, not remove th
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, not remove the options nor disable them, just don't print them in the
> help screen. There's no extra burden, if the maintainer doesn't bother, it
> will print out all of them. It has always been the case that autoconf
> accepted --xxxdir options
"Wilbur Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the best way to set the execution shell for my configure script.
At run-time or at configure-time?
At run-time you can do env CONFIG_SHELL=/bla/ha configure.
At configure-time is worse, because it's set by AC_INIT.
/assar
