Re: generating a configure script in a subdirectory?

2003-12-17 Thread Akim Demaille
> But beware, autoreconf can be dangerous and doesn't always work. Why?

Re: generating a configure script in a subdirectory?

2003-12-17 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 10:05, Akim Demaille wrote: > > But beware, autoreconf can be dangerous and doesn't always work. > > Why? To make a long story short, some examples: 1. autoreconf doesn't work if a package has not been prepared for the particular version of auto*tools autoreconf is about t

lose it

2003-12-17 Thread Gale Boyer
Most effective weight loss available without prescription Find out more here I don't want this

Re: generating a configure script in a subdirectory?

2003-12-17 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Akim Demaille wrote: > > > But beware, autoreconf can be dangerous and doesn't always work. > > Why? In times past, it has trashed & thrashed subdirectories. For example, I recall (a couple of years ago) that libltdl required a particular version of Autoconf. Libltdl was s

Re: autoconf not hard-link safe

2003-12-17 Thread Paul Eggert
Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Most POSIX utilities are required to leave output files > > hard-linked, so there's good precedent for Autoconf's behavior. Even > > if we altered Autoconf, that still leaves the sh, cp, etc. as tools > > that won't break the hard links. > > Autoco

lose it

2003-12-17 Thread Steven Hatch
Lose weight the easier way!"IT'S NOT A DIET IT'S A PATCH" Order today and get 5 month supply for the price of 4! * No side effects* Completely safe * 100% Móney Back Guarántee* Discretely shipped * Order shipped same day Read all about it and order here Unlist me

Re: generating a configure script in a subdirectory?

2003-12-17 Thread Juan Luis Baptiste
This is what I needed to know, thank you very much. Cheers, Juan Luis Baptiste You are supposed to cd to the subproject and run autoconf/automake etc. there, i.e. the steps you don't want to do are the nominal procedure. Some projects try to automate this by using a manually written script, in mos

Re: autoconf not hard-link safe

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Collins
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 05:05, Paul Eggert wrote: > Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As far as I can see, this is a bug in 'patch', as 'patch' currently > violates POSIX in this respect. > > says

Re: autoconf not hard-link safe

2003-12-17 Thread Paul Eggert
Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It needn't be the default, but it certainly should be an option, > > > > Yes, it would be reasonable to add it as an option. > > Is this something an autoconf developer would be inclined to > scratch? I don't think it'd be high priority, no. (Ha