On 23 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tom Holroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What do you think? Is this a configure problem or should it be left to
> > "packagers"? Can configure include tools that make such integrity
> > verification easier (and automatic)? For example, "make dist" or
Michael Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Autoconf could run gnupg / pgp (if present) after generating the
> configure script and produce a checksum on the script. If this was a
> default action, then it would increase the chance of developers having
> at least some checksumming.
Better to sig
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Michael Still wrote:
> Autoconf could run gnupg / pgp (if present) after generating the configure
> script and produce a checksum on the script. If this was a default action,
> then it would increase the chance of developers having at least some
> checksumming.
>
> It doesn't
Attn: Sales Manager
If you are outsourcing or need to expand your sales force for the short term or long
term contract, Telexpand will create a tailored campaign to
guarantee you and your product success.
We are an established, full service call center with a completely trained staff of 70
> I just tried out the new trace facility on Autoconf's own configure.in:
> $ ./autoconf --trace=AC_SUBST configure.in
>
> and got some lines like
>
> configure.in:8:AC_SUBST:AUTOTEST_PATH:m4_default([..], [.])
> configure.in:9:AC_SUBST:EXPR:$ac_cv_path_EXPR
> configure.in:15:AC_SUBST:M4:$ac_cv
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 20, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The code is absolutely frozen, this is our release candidate. We
>> still have much freedom on the documentation, of course.
Alexandre> Please tag the tree as
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> That's why we should have this portability library coded in
Alexandre> m4sh. Instead of repeatedly fixing the same problems over
Alexandre> and over, we should have them coded right once, and then
Alexandre> used all over. Th
> On Friday 20 April 2001 7:12 pm, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Gary> Salut Akim!
> >
> > Coucou !
>
> Qu'est-ce que c'est?
According to my dictionary ``peek-a-boo''. Very hard to describe :)
It's kind of `salut', but in contexts
Akim Demaille writes:
> > configure.in:8:AC_SUBST:AUTOTEST_PATH:m4_default([..], [.])
> > configure.in:9:AC_SUBST:EXPR:$ac_cv_path_EXPR
> > configure.in:15:AC_SUBST:M4:$ac_cv_path_M4
>
> Which is what is expected :) Maybe you meant --trace=AC_SUBST:'$1'.
Silly me. I didn't know that AC_SUBST n
Akim Demaille wrote:
> > On Friday 20 April 2001 7:12 pm, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > > > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Gary> Salut Akim!
> > >
> > > Coucou !
> >
> > Qu'est-ce que c'est?
>
> According to my dictionary ``peek-a-boo''. Very hard to describe
On 22-Apr-2001, Lars J. Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I was thinking of using texinfo markup directly in the doc macro. HTML
| and other formats should come from the texinfo output. I don't see this
| part as an obstacle - the problem is more on the management-side - getting
| the doc parts
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
: You might take a look at what is currently used in the Octave sources
: (current CVS and recent bleeding-edge (2.1.x) releases). The doc
: strings for individual functions are written using Texinfo, and they
: are included in the so
Me, too! Me, too! :-)
AutoGen is now an official GNU tool & it includes
an extractor not only useful for documentation, but
just about everything else tied to entries in a source
file. Since it antedates many of the other tools
mentioned, it also uses slightly different syntax.
But it is surp
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 03:15:08AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2001, Daniel Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have a somewhat unusal C compiler and version
> > of unix that is giving me problems with a configure
> > script (using Autoconf 2.13).
>
> Try autoconf 2.49e
On 23 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Autoconf could run gnupg / pgp (if present) after generating the
> > configure script and produce a checksum on the script. If this was a
> > default action, then it would increase the chance of developers havin
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Tom Holroyd wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Michael Still wrote:
>
> > Autoconf could run gnupg / pgp (if present) after generating the configure
> > script and produce a checksum on the script. If this was a default action,
> > then it would increase the chance of developers h
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:14:16PM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> How many people use make dist though? My thinking was based on the fact
> that the configure script is the bit that people seem to be concerned
> about the most, because it is the first instance of some code being
> blindly run.
Jus
Latest CVS autoconf.
I have several autoconf packages that do not do any compiling, so I don't
bother to call AC_PROG_CC .
However, the generated "configure" script seems to want to find the C
preprocessor, and this fails with:
harlan@puss> configure
checking for a BSD compatible install... /
On Apr 23, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 20, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The code is absolutely frozen, this is our release candidate. We
>>> still have much freedom on the
Hi Bob,
Thanks for tracking down the cause.
I'm forwarding your report to the autoconf mailing list.
Jim
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
| > > | The version 4.0.45, I think from autoconf et al, leaves a "--version"
| > > | file containing "!" in the source directory. Just FYI...
| >
20 matches
Mail list logo
