Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Pavel Roskin wrote: > I think it would be nice if anybody with Solaris and *BSD could run the > testsuite as well. > The testsuite itself fails under SuSE Linux 7.0: == ./debug-148.sh: Testing the autoupdating of AC_OUTPUT_COMMANDS ===

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Akim Demaille
| Pavel Roskin wrote: | > I think it would be nice if anybody with Solaris and *BSD could run the | > testsuite as well. | > | The testsuite itself fails under SuSE Linux 7.0: | | == | ./debug-148.sh: Testing the autoupdating of AC_OUT

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hello, David! > What would you like done on what version of Autoconf and what version of Solaris > and do you want the native compiler tested or will GCC be ok? > > Let me know and I'll see what can be done. Well, I just realized that even make SHELL=/bin/ksh CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/ksh check won'

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Daniele Arena
Hello everybody, I might be able to test autoconf on some platforms (BSDI, Solaris, Alpha, AIX...), as long as it does not involve spending a night doing that, but I think i missed some information: - Which version of autoconf do you want to be tested? The version on ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/auto

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread David Morgan
Hi Pavel, Initial testing is NOT going well. On the Solaris 8 box that I am testing on the make check failed with a missing automake and a missing makeinfo. I installed automake 1.4 and a dummy makeinfo. I have a: tools.m4:164 ignored near `tools.m4:183' I'm not sure what to do with the igno

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Daniele" == Daniele Arena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniele> - Which version of autoconf do you want to be tested? The Daniele> version on ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/, autoconf-2.49a, Daniele> dates of August 11. Or should I checkout the CVS tree Daniele> somehow? Thanks for the p

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Akim Demaille
| tools.m4:164 ignored near `tools.m4:183' | | I'm not sure what to do with the ignored as I got some on my Linux box as well. No problems. | I also tried on a QNX box (our torture test box for building our products) | | The configure script bombs out while creating config.status with a mess

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread David Morgan
Akim Demaille wrote: > > | tools.m4:164 ignored near `tools.m4:183' > | > | I'm not sure what to do with the ignored as I got some on my Linux box as well. > > No problems. > > | I also tried on a QNX box (our torture test box for building our products) > | > | The configure script bombs out

Re: Success (mostly) with the testsuite

2000-10-13 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Oct 12, 2000, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, that test sets cross_compiling=yes which is not something that > can ever happen in the real life with the bundled /bin/cc. But there's still some problem there, and the reason the testsuite sets this variable is precisely to de