Hello Philip, Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:53:15PM CEST:
> At Sunday 25 July 2010, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > confdefs.h is one idea, but I'm not sure it captures *all* of the
> > state. Does it?
No, it only captures the AC_DEFINE part, not the AC_SUBST part.
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:55 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
> John Calcote wrote:
> > I apologize in advance for the apparent self-promoting tone of this
> > message but I know there are folks out there interested in hearing about
> > it. [Note also that I've only sent this note to the autoconf list in
Is this book published under a free documentation license?
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
On 7/27/2010 9:44 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Is this book published under a free documentation license?
>
Hi Alfred,
To be totally honest, I'm not really sure. That may sound funny, but
I've been afraid to push this issue with No Starch Press because I had
to search long and hard for a publis
On 07/27/2010 03:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 02:58 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> +# Let user choose which version of autoconf to use.
>> +AUTOCONF=${AUTOCONF-autoconf}
>> +
>
> I'm used to this variant, with less typing:
>
> : ${AUTOCONF=autoconf}
>
> But your way works, too.
Huh
Hi Eric.
At Tuesday 27 July 2010, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 03:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 07/27/2010 02:58 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >> +# Let user choose which version of autoconf to use.
> >> +AUTOCONF=${AUTOCONF-autoconf}
> >> +
> >
> > I'm used to this variant, with less typ
On 07/27/2010 03:37 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> I'm used to this variant, with less typing:
>>> : ${AUTOCONF=autoconf}
>>>
>>> But your way works, too.
> Can you confirm it's as portable as the ways suggested in the autoconf
> manual? If yes, do you think it could be an useful addition to th
[Removing automake-patches from CC]
At Tuesday 27 July 2010, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 03:37 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >>> I'm used to this variant, with less typing:
> >>> : ${AUTOCONF=autoconf}
> >>>
> >>> But your way works, too.
> >
> > Can you confirm it's as portable as the wa
