Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-14 Thread Erez Zadok
The latest automake (off of cvs) doesn't yet handle the AC_CONFIG_FILES()/AC_OUTPUT split. This is only an autoconf warning now, but it means that automake is not user-releasable yet. (Unless you guys want to be bombarded with tons of similar questions.) Automake also doesn't handle the --build

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-14 Thread Erez Zadok
That's good news, Akim. Now, do you have a schedule for when a feature freeze will happen, and when this autoconf will work with automake 1.4a? After these two happen, I'd like to test autoconf on all of my platforms. I do it in two ways: (1) run make test, and (2) use it in my am-utils package

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-15 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: > >>>>> "Erez" == Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > Erez> After these two happen, I'd like to test autoconf on all of my > Erez> platforms. I do it in two ways: (1)

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-16 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: > > Wow, sounds like there is plenty of exciting things to check here. I > have access to some Solarises, I will try with them to see if I can > get all the data I need. Thanks a lot for the report (and don't lose > these guys :). > > Akim

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-20 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: > > Hi Erez, > > I have fixed several mistakes in the test suite, so there should be > less failures now. > > There are some I really don't understand, and I need your help (I > can't reproduce them). But I would suggest that you pull out a

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-20 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: > > Hi Erez, > > I have fixed several mistakes in the test suite, so there should be > less failures now. > > There are some I really don't understand, and I need your help (I > can't reproduce them). But I would suggest that you pull out a

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-22 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: > [...] > Thanks for the logs! Let me know when I should run another set of tests. > Akim Akim, you could help folks like me by distributing some sort of wrapper script that does the following: - run make test - for every failed te

Re: Pirate Autoconf and CVS Autoconf

2000-02-22 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Tromey writes: > >>>>> "Erez" == Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Erez> Akim, you could help folks like me by distributing some sort of > Erez> wrapper script that does the following: > >

latest testing

2000-03-03 Thread Erez Zadok
Akim, I checked today and found out that there have been updates to the autoconf cvs. When will the cvs-commit mailing list move to the new site so we can get notified immediately? Anyway, I ran the same tests on my Solaris 7 box, and only two things failed (debug-78 and -97) both b/c of the src

automake --build-dir

2000-04-01 Thread Erez Zadok
Autoconf expects automake to support a --build-dir option during "make dist". Automake doesn't support that option. I have the most recent CVS'ed versions. This has been not working for some time now. Will this simple problem be fixed soon? Also, what's the difference b/t --build-dir and --ou

Re: automake --build-dir

2000-04-01 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erez Zadok writes: > Autoconf expects automake to support a --build-dir option during "make > dist". Automake doesn't support that option. I have the most recent CVS'ed > versions. This has been not working for some time now.

Re: automake --build-dir

2000-04-02 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexandre Oliva writes: > On Apr 2, 2000, Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Update: I managed to solve that problem by rerunning automake on the .am > > files in the autoconf CVS repository. > > You must re-run

Re: Proposal to make better use of 5th arg to AC_CHECK_LIB and AC_SEARCH_LIBS

2001-10-01 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Eggert writes: [...] > What if there were multiple -lxxx args, e.g.: AC_CHECK_LIB(hesiod, > hes_init,,, -lresolv -lsocket) Would you want it to try all > combinations ('', '-lresolv', '-lsocket', '-lresolve -lsocket')? > Seems like that would be a win in some c