Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> latest version is attached
> (minor tweaks compared to previous).
>
>>From b9e5fe8076e7a55f152e5ffbd841310ba4994838 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:40:12 +0100
> Subject:
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/21/2008 4:04 PM:
>> echo "$ver" | sed '
>> s/^\([0-9]\{,\}\)\.\([0-9]\{,\}\)[.0]*$/\1.\2.0/; #1.10 ->
>> 1.10.0
>> s/^\([0-9]\{,\}\)\.\([0-9]\{,\}\)\([a-z]\)/\1.\2.99\3/; #1.10a ->
>> 1.10.99a
>
> For what it's worth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/21/2008 4:04 PM:
> echo "$ver" | sed '
> s/^\([0-9]\{,\}\)\.\([0-9]\{,\}\)[.0]*$/\1.\2.0/; #1.10 ->
> 1.10.0
> s/^\([0-9]\{,\}\)\.\([0-9]\{,\}\)\([a-z]\)/\1.\2.99\3/; #1.10a ->
> 1.10.99a
F
Version 2 of bootstrap requirements checking patch attached.
Note if one wanted to fully support all (old) version formats
as automake does, one could normalize them before comparison
with something like the following:
normalize_version() {
ver="$1"
echo "$ver" | sed '
s/^\([0-9]\{
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
> ...
>>> Are you interested in doing something like that?
>> Well all missing dependencies are currently reported I think,
>> but it can be minutes into the build before this happens.
>> I'll add a list to bootst
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
...
>> Are you interested in doing something like that?
>
> Well all missing dependencies are currently reported I think,
> but it can be minutes into the build before this happens.
> I'll add a list to bootstrap.conf to give immediate
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Thanks for writing that up.
>>> Would you care to ensconce it somewhere more permanent?
>> How about the attached?
>
> Thanks!
> However, since your instructions are Fedora 8-specific (and hence
> guaranteed
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Thanks for writing that up.
>> Would you care to ensconce it somewhere more permanent?
>
> How about the attached?
Thanks!
However, since your instructions are Fedora 8-specific (and hence
guaranteed to be far less useful in a year
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 10/14/2008 7:13 AM:
>> Oh! I was using a just-too-old (pre-7.0) version there.
>> Thanks for checking and keeping me honest.
>> IMHO this means automake is muddying the waters by giving
>> something-newer-than automake-1.10.1 the
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 15:27:54 Eric Blake wrote:
> On the other hand, autoconf's m4_version_compare (which is what automake
> uses to determine if you are using a new enough version, when you request
> 1.10a), treats 1.10a > 1.10.1. In other words, 1.10a is the alpha in
> preparation for 1.11
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>>% printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V
>>automake-1.10a
>>automake-1.10.1
>IMHO this means automake is muddying the waters by giving
>something-newer-than automake-1.10.1 the version string "1.10a".
Or that sort -V is incorrect. Note that Perl's Sort::Ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/14/2008 7:13 AM:
> Oh! I was using a just-too-old (pre-7.0) version there.
> Thanks for checking and keeping me honest.
> IMHO this means automake is muddying the waters by giving
> something-newer-than automake-1.10.1
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
> [funky automake version numbers]
>
>>When in doubt, use sort -V from the latest coreutils:
>>
>>$ printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V
>>automake-1.10.1
>>automake-1.10a
>
> That's not the result I get:
>
>
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
[funky automake version numbers]
>When in doubt, use sort -V from the latest coreutils:
>
>$ printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V
>automake-1.10.1
>automake-1.10a
That's not the result I get:
% printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V
automake-1
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>>
A few tools are required to build coreutils from a git checkout, but
not checked in a friendly way.
>>> The newer automake-1.10a is actually required.
>> Ah, ok, it could do with a comment b
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>>>A few tools are required to build coreutils from a git checkout, but
>>>not checked in a friendly way.
>
>>The newer automake-1.10a is actually required.
>
> Ah, ok, it could do with a comment because at first it appears
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>>A few tools are required to build coreutils from a git checkout, but
>>not checked in a friendly way.
>The newer automake-1.10a is actually required.
Ah, ok, it could do with a comment because at first it appears that 1.10.1
should be newer than 1.10a.
[ch
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few tools are required to build coreutils from a git checkout, but
> not checked in a friendly way. This patch adds checks to bootstrap
> and configure.
>
> Oh, and updates automake to 1.10.1, which appears to work.
Hi Ed,
Thanks for working on this.
Appea
18 matches
Mail list logo
