> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> In the long run I'm not sure the Autoconf manual is the right
Paul> place for a "portable shell programming HOWTO".
We agree, but this section has to reach its critical mass before being
cut from Autoconf's documentation itself.
P
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 25 Jul 2002 13:04:11 +0200
>
> Wow. Paul, would you install this in autoconf.texi?
OK, I installed this patch. I hope it covers everything.
2002-09-02 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/autoconf.texi (Limitations of Builtins): Ex
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I could be mistaken but I think some of us are talking about "how do we
> specify the default for X", and not "do we specify X at compile time or at
> runtime".
In my case I'm talking about how do I set some defaults at compile time.
They can (i thin
Today, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It may be wrong (or merely suboptimal) to abuse --with and --enable, but if
>> the only tool you have is a hammer...
>
>This is unfortunately how I feel. I hate to abuse the --with flags, but
>setting 27 different environment variables or editing a config file
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> In my experience, a cryptic configuration file is almost always
> an improvement over a configure switch.
You're at Stanford. You must be a student.
Hand editing configure or config.status are completely
insufferable as alternatives. I am bold enough to say
that if you don't
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > In my experience, a cryptic configuration file is almost always
> > an improvement over a configure switch.
>
> You're at Stanford. You must be a student.
You got a problem with that? I have a degree in electrical
engineering an
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This seems like obviously bad advice to me. How is one expected to
>> handle something like specification of a default paper size unless
>> there's a user switch somewhere?
>> Surely the GNU coding standards are
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In my experience, a cryptic configuration file is almost always an
> > improvement over a configure switch. To change a configure switch, I
> > have to find the program's source code and figure out and go throug
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:49:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The pre-autoconf solution was to make people edit a C header file and
> follow somewhat cryptic instructions in comments, or edit a Makefile and
> set defaults. Surely people don't think we should go back to that? A
apparently so
| > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
| >
| > So which is the recommended practices way to handle this with autoconf?
|
| The GNU coding standards say this:
|
|You will note that the categories `--with-' and `--enable-' are
|narrow: they *do not* pr
recently back from vacations :)
> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> M4's rules are sometimes painful, but the shell's are often worse.
Bruce> No way. What is crucial in quoting rules is that they be
Bruce> consistent. M4's are not. Second in
11 matches
Mail list logo
