Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Akim Demaille
> [bug-autoconf@ has a stupid filter that doesn't let me through, so I'm > posting here instead.] It should be fixed by now. Could you find out why you were blocked? > On some systems (eg. Linux) flock(2) does not work over network, but Perl > prefers that over fcntl(2) if it exists. So au

Re: How's autoconf-2.57a coming along?

2003-09-25 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Joseph D. Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If it's still in alpha, could you please update the alpha package? > Even doing that takes some work, I'm afraid. I'm willing to release 2.58 asap though.

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Andreas Schwab
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [bug-autoconf@ has a stupid filter that doesn't let me through, so I'm > > posting here instead.] > > It should be fixed by now. Could you find out why you were blocked? The bounce message only said "Message has a suspicious header" without any hin

How many packages use autotools?

2003-09-25 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all I am wondering how widespread the use of the autotools is - particularly among projects that are *not* GNU or other Free Software, or even "Open Source" but not-quite Free. IOW how many in-house completely locked-up proprietary packages use

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Paul Eggert
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The bounce message only said "Message has a suspicious header" without any > hints. I've gotten those too. It's annoying. In one case, it was because I was using the Debian method of reporting bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with an "X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL P

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Paul Eggert
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would there be a nice solution? Perhaps the simplest solution would be to ignore that particular failure. Something like the following, perhaps? (I haven't tested this, partly because I'm lazy, partly because I don't offhand know the portability const

Agenda Juridica 2004

2003-09-25 Thread Editora
Title: Untitled Document AGENDA JURÍDICA 2004 - Encadernação de luxo LEVE, PRÁTICA E FUNCIONAL Um produto com a garantia do EMENTÁRIO FORENSE D

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Paul> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Would there be a nice solution? Paul> Perhaps the simplest solution would be to ignore that Paul> particular failure. But autom4te does need a working lock, or else it's easy to corrupt i

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Paul Eggert
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I admit that having a lock > everywhere except on NFS is still a progress wrt 2.57. Yes, that's what I was thinking. > How about dropping flock() for a mkdir()-based lock? Then we'd have to clean up afterwards, and deal with recovering from sys

Re: How many packages use autotools?

2003-09-25 Thread Grzegorz Jakacki
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello all > > I am wondering how widespread the use of the autotools is - particularly > among projects that are *not* GNU or other Free Software, or even "Open > Source" but not-quite Free. IOW how

RE: How many packages use autotools?

2003-09-25 Thread Joseph D. Wagner
> I use Autotools only on *NIX, I would expect that the view is different > when you look through the Windows. Nobody uses autoconf on Windows. On Windows, people use Microsoft Installer or InstallShield. Autoconf is exclusively for UNIX variants (Linux, *BSD, Solaris, SCO UNIX, AIX, etc.)

error: m4_defn: undefined macro: _m4_divert_diversion

2003-09-25 Thread Roopa Prabhu
Hello, I have been trying to compile the mpich 1.2.5 sources. In the sources for ch_p4 device ie, in mpich/mpid/ch_p4/p4 when I try doing a autoconf to recreate the configuration file I get the following error : configure.in:280: error: m4_defn: undefined macro: _m4_divert_diversion autoconf/p

RE: How many packages use autotools?

2003-09-25 Thread Grzegorz Jakacki
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > > I use Autotools only on *NIX, I would expect that the view is different > > when you look through the Windows. > > Nobody uses autoconf on Windows. On Windows, people use Microsoft > Installer or InstallShield. Autoconf is exclusively for UNIX var

Re: autoconf 2.57b: locking fails over NFS

2003-09-25 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] >> How about dropping flock() for a mkdir()-based lock? Paul> Then we'd have to clean up afterwards, and deal with recovering Paul> from system crashes, and so forth. Yes :( maybe that's too late for 2.58. Paul> Sorry, I'm missing

Re: How many packages use autotools?

2003-09-25 Thread Roger Leigh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bernd Jendrissek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am wondering how widespread the use of the autotools is - particularly > among projects that are *not* GNU or other Free Software, or even "Open > Source" but not-quite Free. IOW how many in-house comp

Autoconf 2.57d released

2003-09-25 Thread Akim Demaille
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> This is our candidate release for Autoconf 2.58. We plan to release it soon, so that Automake 1.8 can be released, hence Libtool 1.6, so that GNU M4 2.0 can be shipped, enabling Autoconf 2.60 ;) Please, test it thoroughly. Akim, Alexandre, Jim, Paul,