release Autoconf?

2001-05-09 Thread Lars J. Aas
Hi, Shouldn't we push Autoconf out the door soon? I don't see the point in delaying the release any longer. Nothing seems to be going on, so I propose that we make a 2.50 branch and release 2.50 from it. Then we can continue general development in HEAD while maintaining the 2.50 branch by ap

2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-09 Thread Matthew Schalit
Hi folks, I raised this problem once before, where I can't boostrap CVS gcc using autoconf 2.49e Gcc builds just fine with 2.13. Summary: - autoconf -l . gets run and fails with a gm4 recursion limit of 250 exceeded. Running an i586-sco-sysv5uw7.1.1, gnu make-3.79.1 binutils 2.1

AC_CHECK_LIB - other libraries not shared

2001-05-09 Thread Joe McAlerney
Hello, I searched through the full raw archive for relevant information, but did not come up with anything that fit my exact problem. My apologies if I missed something. I am attempting to use AC_CHECK_LIB to check for the existence of a library X. As the documentation states, you must provide

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-09 Thread Steven G. Johnson
Hear, hear! Steven

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-09 Thread Thomas E. Dickey
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Matthew Schalit wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I raised this problem once before, where I can't > boostrap CVS gcc using autoconf 2.49e > > Gcc builds just fine with 2.13. > > Summary: > - > autoconf -l . gets run and fails with a gm4 > recursion limit of 250 exceeded.

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
"Lars J. Aas" wrote: > > Hi, > > Shouldn't we push Autoconf out the door soon? I don't see the point in > delaying the release any longer. Nothing seems to be going on, so I > propose that we make a 2.50 branch and release 2.50 from it. Then we can > continue general development in HEAD whi

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB - other libraries not shared

2001-05-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Joe McAlerney writes: > My question: Is there a way to check for the existence of X without > checking for unresolved symbols? Libntp can be installed in an > arbitrary location, so checking for it is probably not feasible. Since the user is going to have a pretty hard time building your progr

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-09 Thread Matthew Schalit
Thomas ! "Thomas E. Dickey" wrote: > > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Matthew Schalit wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I raised this problem once before, where I can't > > boostrap CVS gcc using autoconf 2.49e > > > > Gcc builds just fine with 2.13. > > > > Summary: > > - > > autoconf -l .

RE: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-09 Thread Tim Van Holder
> You found it. Configure.in is loaded with changequote() calls. > > > > That feature is broken in the current alpha versions of autoconf, > > has been reported a few times (and shows up with this symptom). > > > Something broken? Is it to be fixed before 2.50? > OK - tried removing all changequ

Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

2001-05-09 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:13:10PM +0200, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > You found it. Configure.in is loaded with changequote() calls. > > > > > > > That feature is broken in the current alpha versions of autoconf, > > > has been reported a few times (and shows up with this symptom). > > > > > > Some

Re: release Autoconf?

2001-05-09 Thread Steven G. Johnson
Ralf Corsepius wrote: > How about fixing this one > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2001-05/msg7.html? Yes, I was kind of assuming that the immediate bug-patch queue would be flushed first. The above patch (using AC_REQUIRE instead of calling a macro directly) seems correct, si