> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> I don't think autoconf and autoheader have a required ordering.
Theoretically, no. In practice, it is better to have autoconf
complain about configure.in than autoheader.
> "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Hi Tom et. al.: I'm working on a trivial doc to include with GNU
Paul> make that gives the exact steps to build it from a clean
Paul> checkout. I based the algorithm on what autoreconf uses, but I
Paul> can't use autoreconf (mainly d
> "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> So, autoreconf basically proceeds in this order: gettextize,
Paul> aclocal, automake, autoconf, autoheader.
Paul> This means that when automake is run as the third step, it
Paul> complains about a missing config.h.in (which isn't so
Hi Tom et. al.:
I'm working on a trivial doc to include with GNU make that gives the
exact steps to build it from a clean checkout. I based the algorithm on
what autoreconf uses, but I can't use autoreconf (mainly due to
gettextize issues).
So, autoreconf basically proceeds in this order: gette
