Re: [PATCH] disabling warnings

2000-05-15 Thread Didier Verna
Akim Demaille wrote: > You raise the problem of service interaction between a. applications' > defaults, b. WARNINGS, c. command line options. > > There are several options: > > > i Cumulative: > Honor a + b + c (user should use `none' or `nosth' to remove > something in a o

Re: [Q] before AC_INIT

2000-05-15 Thread Didier Verna
Akim Demaille wrote: > correct me if I misunderstood, > hit me if I'm wrong, > kill me if you disagree, > bury me if your opinion is different. If any of you want one of these to be done, just ask me. Akim is about 3 meters away from me right now :-) -- / / _ _ Didier

Re: [Q] before AC_INIT

2000-05-15 Thread Didier Verna
Akim Demaille wrote: > dv> Would it be possible for autoconf to load the site and > dv> local macro files (like aclocal.m4) *before* the call to AC_INIT ? > Even if you know what you are doing, you are breaking the contract > with Autoconf: if you want to include something before AC_INIT

Re: [Q] before AC_INIT

2000-05-15 Thread Akim Demaille
Well, Didier and I talked about this issue, and, correct me if I misunderstood, it seems that the primary issue is the fact that some macros need to be before AC_INIT, while most others should not. I've been bugged by this too, and, hit me if I'm wrong, all (y)our troubles will vanish if *any* m

CVS Autoconf is weak

2000-05-15 Thread Akim Demaille
I should warn you that there is a known bug in the current CVS Autoconf: if `./configure' receives two or more arguments, they are improperly given to `./config.status', hence `./config.status --recheck' will not perform its tasks correctly. AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS is probably affected too. I'm worki

Re: [Q] before AC_INIT

2000-05-15 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On May 15, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alternatively, should AC_PACKAGE be removed in favor of AC_INIT/2-3 > args? I like this. So do I. -- Alexandre OlivaEnjoy Guaraná, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat companyaoliva@{redhat, cy

Re: Maintainers -- now what? (was RE: rfc: new libgcc build mechanis m)

2000-05-15 Thread Jeffrey A Law
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] rosoft.com>you write: > > At this point we have the following situation: > The current makefile/configure combination doesn't > work on systems without symbolic links because of > the nested quoting problem discussed in this thread. > > No one has ye

Re: [Q] before AC_INIT

2000-05-15 Thread Didier Verna
[ Cc'ed to automake, see last point ] Akim Demaille wrote: > it seems that the primary issue is the fact that some macros need to be > before AC_INIT, while most others should not. correct. > all (y)our troubles will vanish if *any* macro works after AC_INIT. correct. > I'v

Re: [PB] m4 macros renaming

2000-05-15 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> I understand the need, I don't understand `sinclude'. It seems Akim> to me you want `include', not `sinclude'. Ian> Ignorance, I think. I think I just copied sinclude from some Ian> other m4 script. Tom> ISTR that autoconf disabled "

Re: [Qs] about AC_PACKAGE

2000-05-15 Thread Didier Verna
Akim Demaille wrote: > > "dv" == Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > dv> 1/ It is not documented. Is it intentional or just an ommision ? > > A bit of both. If you think this is the right signature, please > proceed a submit an update of the documentation. OK. > Should g