If anyone present can show just and legal cause why it may not
be shipped, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
Well, nobody seems to be against the release, so let's do it now.
Hi, Akim!
On 21 May 2001, Akim Demaille wrote:
> If anyone present can show just and legal cause why it may not
> be shipped, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
>
> Well, nobody seems to be against the release, so let's do it now.
Let me be the first to congratulate
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, nobody seems to be against the release, so let's do it now.
Pavel> Let me be the first to congratulate you and everybody on this
Pavel> list!
Let me be the first to welcome you :)
Wazaaa!
The Autoconf team is extremely proud (and quite relieved) to announce
the release of Autoconf 2.50. As can be guessed from the NEWS excerpt
below, profound changes have been made in order to provide a more
coherent interface and more user-friendly macros.
Autoconf can be downloaded from
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:41:21PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >> Well, nobody seems to be against the release, so let's do it now.
:
: Pavel> Let me be the first to congratulate you and everybody on this
: Pavel> list!
:
: Let me be
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Is the 2.50 branch set up?
There is a tag, autoconf-2_50.
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 03:41:44PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Lars> Is the 2.50 branch set up?
:
: There is a tag, autoconf-2_50.
I thought we should branch off for patchlevel/bugfix releases and keep head
for continued development o
Lars> Is the 2.50 branch set up?
Akim> There is a tag, autoconf-2_50.
For the time being, I'd appreciate that we keep on working on surface
issues. I sure don't want to prohibit more ambitious changes, but
there is still room for improvements on many issues. For instance,
I'd like to start si
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Lars> Is the 2.50 branch set up?
>
> Akim> There is a tag, autoconf-2_50.
>
Sorry, but IHMO, there should be a branch.
>
> Do you people think an FAQ should be in the documentation, or just
> kept as a web page?
> I do think we need one,
ACK.
> but should it be ship
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> There is a tag, autoconf-2_50.
Ralf> Sorry, but IHMO, there should be a branch.
It was my understanding that a tag was enough to have a branch if we
want one.
Ralf> IMHO, having a plain text FAQ at the toplevel directory is a
Ralf
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralf> Sorry, but IHMO, there should be a branch.
> It was my understanding that a tag was enough to have a branch if we
> want one.
That's correct; as long as you have a tag, you can always l
| + After cleaning up the autoupdate warnings, I got the following warning
| from autoconf:
|
| configure.in:1: error: possibly undefined macro: dnl
|
| (But I didn't get that warning from dnl lines in my aclocal file!?)
|
| I switched to using # as my comment character and thing
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> It means that somewhere you were relying on the broken quotation
Akim> of 2.13, or maybe that it is 2.50, trying to fix these issues,
Akim> that broke your sources.
It can very well be a real bug in 2.50, your feedback is essential.
Hi,
You remember the need for
CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib
while running configure? (We discussed this around 2001-03-15, subject
"installation instructions on OpenBSD and FreeBSD".)
It is not only a problem with *BSD. Also all of
SunOS 4cc
Solariscc
A
> Be aware that this message is definitely the sign that something is
> going wrong. If I were you, I'd restore the dnl, and would look for
> it in `configure' itself. It means that somewhere you were relying on
> the broken quotation of 2.13, or maybe that it is 2.50, trying to fix
> these issu
Bruno Haible wrote:
> [...]
> Another totally different approach is to recommend that every
> library libfoo comes with a script 'foo-config' in /usr/local/bin that
> can spit out the required -I and -L options. Here as well, autoconf
> support would be nice, so that the resulting -I/-L options w
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Bruno Haible wrote:
> So, in fact, it is a problem with *most* platforms, excluding GNU.
> This is also what is written in the GNU standards:
>
> Most compilers other than GCC do not look for header files in
> directory `/usr/local/include'. So installing the heade
I'm an autoconf newbie. I have a few working autoconf macros that I
tried to add caching support for, on the model of code from the Vaughan
et al. autobook.
Caching sort of works: I can see the proper value set in config.cache,
and on the first clean run the appropriate #define gets set in
confi
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to propose a "configure" option --use-local which,
> depending on the language being used, does the following. For C and C++,
> it appends " -I/usr/local/include" to CPPFLAGS and " -L/usr/local/lib"
> to LDFLAGS. For Fortran, it should do si
| Caching sort of works: I can see the proper value set in config.cache,
| and on the first clean run the appropriate #define gets set in
| config.h. On subsequent runs, the config.h value remains commented
| out. Here's one of my macros, to check for SysV IPC headers:
|
| AC_DEFUN([ETR_SYSV_IP
20 matches
Mail list logo
