Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:53:58AM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 00:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > > > > > What is the recommended way of treating a DOS path such as? :- > > > > > > c:\de

Re: Why was handling of program_prefix changed?

2002-02-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Am Mit, 2002-02-13 um 20.09 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > Currently we have some major breakage in Debian re. crosscompilation, and we > really would prefer to fix it only once (since it does mean changing all > packages that use autoconf, and that's quite a lot). That means we have > t

Re: cvs diff software/autoconf/autoconf.html

2002-02-14 Thread Akim Demaille
| Akim, | | Shall I commit this? :-) -- Bruce | | $ cvs diff autoconf/autoconf.html | Index: autoconf/autoconf.html | === | RCS file: /webcvs/software/autoconf/autoconf.html,v | retrieving revision 1.7 | diff -u -r1.7 autoconf.ht

Re: What's the deal with autom4te.cache?

2002-02-14 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Akim Demaille writes: >> > "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Peter> Whenever CVS autoconf is run, it leaves a directory Peter> autom4te.cache/ in the current directory. What does this save? >> Trac

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:18, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:53:58AM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 00:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > > > > > > > What is the recomme

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > I wouldn't go that far; autoconf currently supports ';' as pathsep > > > just fine. And in "most" places, I think it also handles a \ as dirsep. > > > > > > However, there will probably be places where a path is (accidentally

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.site, but config.log shows:- > > > PATH: c:\us in > PATH: c:\emx in > PATH: c:\usr\loca in > PATH: c:\os2 > PATH: . Probably because

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.site, but config.log shows:- > > > > > > PATH: c:\us in > > P

Re: Why was handling of program_prefix changed?

2002-02-14 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Am Mit, 2002-02-13 um 20.09 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > > need to be modifed. We would also like to tell configure what arch to build > > for directly while at it (even when not crosscompiling), to avoid the > > config.guess call. > => Just

--build and --host

2002-02-14 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hello, In case Henrique's posting wasn't clear, the question is this: is ./configure --build=foo ... different from ./configure --build=foo --host=foo ... or not? In other words, does configure change its behaviour (e.g. go into "cross compiling" mode) as soon as --host is sp

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 15:49, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.sit

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Thomas E. Dickey
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > Probably because this is logged before config.site is run. > > Again I must point out that the behaviour of ksh's echo could be > > considered broken; it requires an option to behave 'normally'. > > Is there a definitive view on this? apparently not

Re: --build and --host

2002-02-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Am Don, 2002-02-14 um 16.17 schrieb Steve M. Robbins: > Hello, > > In case Henrique's posting wasn't clear, the question is this: is > > ./configure --build=foo ... > > different from > > ./configure --build=foo --host=foo ... > > or not? IMO, it is supposed not to be different.

RE: --build and --host

2002-02-14 Thread Bernard Dautrevaux
> -Original Message- > From: Ralf Corsepius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:57 PM > To: Steve M. Robbins > Cc: GNU autoconf Mailing List > Subject: Re: --build and --host > > > > So, we really just wanted to know which is the truth? > > None and all

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Paul Eggert
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:49:01 + > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Again I must point out that the behaviour of ksh's echo could be > > considered broken; it requires an option to behave 'normally'. > > Is there a definitive view on this? POSIX 1003.2-1992 says that the resul

Re: cvs diff software/autoconf/autoconf.html

2002-02-14 Thread Bruce Korb
Akim Demaille wrote: > > | Akim, > | > | Shall I commit this? :-) -- Bruce > I am not in favor of this. I don't want to augment the confusion and > giving the idea that AutoGen is bound to Autoconf in any way. I don't > want people to believe writing macros is hard. So frankly, I don't > wa

Re: --build and --host

2002-02-14 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Am Don, 2002-02-14 um 16.17 schrieb Steve M. Robbins: > > 3. Generated configure scripts have this bit > > > > ac_tool_prefix= > > test -n "$host_alias" && ac_tool_prefix=$host_alias- > AFAIU, this is the origin of Ian's question