Hi Bruno,
Here is my interpretation of your work. Alexandre, what do you think
about it?
This implementation requires CVS Autoconf. Install it as
`configure.in' and CVS autoconf it to give it a try.
# aclang.m4
# AC_LANG_BOOLEAN(PROLOGUE, EXPRESSI
Hi
This patch should be the second third of the cross-compilation
changes. After it we should apply the proposal of Mo for an automatic
use of $host-cc when cross-compilation is enabled.
Note that as is written this patch makes it possible for all the
configure to detect cross-compilation by `
Hi Akim,
Your implementation indeed has the aesthetics you were asking for;
congratulations.
> # AC_LANG_COMPUTE(PROLOGUE, EXPRESSION)
> # -
> # Produce a program that saves the runtime evaluation of the integer
> # EXPRESSION into `conftestdate'.
That should
> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruno> Hi Akim, Your implementation indeed has the aesthetics you were
Bruno> asking for; congratulations.
Thanks :)
>> `conftestdate'.
Bruno> That should be `conftestval', not `conftestdate'.
Gromph, thanks!
Akim
Hi Akim,
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:59:12PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Cced to Ossama, because I did something which he was against: I
> decided that either we cross-compile everything or nothing. Ossama,
> IIRC, said he wanted to be able to straight-compile with CC but
> cross-compile with C
As best as I can tell from the patches themselves (without applying and
running them), they don't address my issues--at least the solution is
not what I'd hoped for.
First, IMO warnings aren't good enough. Many people just run
"./configure && make" and go to lunch. They'll never see the warning
Hi Paul,
Before you read on, I'd just like to point that I do agree with your
"(c)" alternative. So please keep that in mind when you read my
disagreements below. I really don't want to get into a "heated"
debate. :-)
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 03:10:22PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> "Very susp
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> Well, I could certainly agree on that `missing mkdir -p' should be made to
> work, but it could do so by calling mkinstalldirs. These scripts are
> useful in their own right, even for people who don't know or need the GNU
> missing script. Once agai
%% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
oo> Before you read on, I'd just like to point that I do agree with your
oo> "(c)" alternative. So please keep that in mind when you read my
oo> disagreements below. I really don't want to get into a "heated"
oo> debate. :-)
S'ok :).
oo>
Hello, Akim!
> 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 a
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think we should not introduce more utilities. We have way too many
> already. How about reimplementing this as a patch to "missing"?
Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.) whereas
mkinstalldirs, install-sh, etc. are the real thing,
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think we should not introduce more utilities. We have way too
>> many already. How about reimplementing this as a patch to
>> "missing"?
Peter> Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.)
Peter> whereas mkinstalld
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.) whereas
> mkinstalldirs, install-sh, etc. are the real thing, but implemented
> in shell. I don't think these things should be mixed up.
The idea of `missing' is to ensure that an installati
> "ois" == ois Pinard writes:
> So, if `missing' ever replaces `install-sh' and `mkinstalldirs',
> this should be seen as a good thing, absolutely in the spirit of the
> design of `missing'.
I share your opinion.
And to answer to the fact that missing is currently part of the
Automake ki
François Pinard writes:
> So, if `missing' ever replaces `install-sh' and `mkinstalldirs', this
> should be seen as a good thing, absolutely in the spirit of the design
> of `missing'.
Well, I could certainly agree on that `missing mkdir -p' should be made to
work, but it could do so by calling
15 matches
Mail list logo
