Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:39 AM Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/12/20 3:53 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > ... we should > > independently discuss whether it makes sense to prefer dash to bash. > > It *would* discourage people from writing bashisms in their > > configure.ac's and it *is* 30% faster than

Should AM_PROG_CC call AM_PROG_CPP?

2020-03-23 Thread Ross Burton
Hi, libSDL2 configures fine with autoconf 2.69 but fails with git master: | checking for stdio.h... yes | checking for stdlib.h... yes | checking for stddef.h... yes | checking for stdarg.h... yes | checking for malloc.h... yes | checking for memory.h... yes | checking for string.h... yes | che

Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Paul Eggert
On 3/23/20 8:01 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote: If I were writing the patches they would go something like this: Change _AS_DETECT_BETTER_SHELL so that if there is more than one shell that supports all of the "as_required" features, it prefers a shell that doesn't set either BASH_VERSION or ZSH_VERSION,

Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote: Given that Debian is _deliberately_ configuring dash without LINENO support in order to work around configure scripts containing bashisms, I think we should make changes in this area cautiously and with a lot of public notice. It's my personal opinion t

Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:48 PM Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > > Given that Debian is _deliberately_ configuring dash without LINENO > > support in order to work around configure scripts containing bashisms, > > I think we should make changes in this area

Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Paul Eggert
On 3/23/20 1:20 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: Autotools and C still have their niche, and that niche is code that _does_ need to be extremely cross platform. If cross-platform is the main goal, Java is often a better choice these days. :-) It would be fine to add an option (default off) to make A

Re: Making Autoconf 2.70 happen in the near future

2020-03-23 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:22 PM Zack Weinberg wrote: > > It has been eight years since the release of autoconf 2.69, there’s > been substantial improvements checked into the development trunk since > then, and the mailing list regularly gets requests for a new release. > It is my understanding that

Re: M4sh tests 77 and 78 vs /bin/sh -> dash

2020-03-23 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Paul Eggert wrote: On 3/23/20 1:20 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: Autotools and C still have their niche, and that niche is code that _does_ need to be extremely cross platform. If cross-platform is the main goal, Java is often a better choice these days. :-) Python 2.7.17

Re: Making Autoconf 2.70 happen in the near future

2020-03-23 Thread Paul Eggert
On 3/23/20 2:08 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: Eric, Paul, as the primary maintainers, I would like to specifically ask you if you like the plan I've outlined and if you think there's anything that should be added to it. The plans sound good to me. Thanks.