On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 12:43:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > static /**/const char *const rcsid[] = { (const char *)rcsid, "\100(#)" msg
> > }
>
> I'm not sure what the \100 is for (why not have it a literal @ sign?
> something excessively clever is going on there), but I suspect that i
> AC_DEFUN([rk_CONFIG_HEADER],[AH_TOP([#ifndef RCSID
See that AH_TOP? *that* is expanding to an AH_VERBATIM which is
expanding to the AH_OUTPUT you see in the error. ("it's turtles all
the way down" :-)
> static /**/const char *const rcsid[] = { (const char *)rcsid, "\100(#)" msg }
I'm not sur
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:23:22AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are the sources that give these errors the current "apt-get source
> heimdall", or something else?
Yes, thats it. I have made some changes, but nothing to produce these
errors.
I wonder if autoconf is somehow interpreting an exp
oh, and "invalid back reference" is a gnu regex error for \n without a
matching nth group.
also, the
configure.in:5: warning: do not use m4_patsubst: use patsubst or m4_bpatsubst
now looks suspiciously relevant (it comes from autoconf.m4, and passes
through the arguments to patsubst -- and at a
ah. well, the AH_OUTPUT([1], AS_ESCAPE looks a lot like it is an
expansion of AH_VERBATIM, and possibly even the one in AH_TOP (look at
/usr/share/autoconf/autoconf/autoheader.m4 near the end of the file.)
So if there's an AH_TOP invocation that has text that looks like the
rest of that argum
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 12:23:44AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [ I did a search for AH_OUTPUT, but found no matches. This error
> > has me stuck. ]
>
> AH_OUTPUT is new in autoconf 2.5x [in autoheader], it isn't in 2.13;
> perhaps this is at least partly a compatiblity problem? (autoco
> [ I did a search for AH_OUTPUT, but found no matches. This error
> has me stuck. ]
AH_OUTPUT is new in autoconf 2.5x [in autoheader], it isn't in 2.13;
perhaps this is at least partly a compatiblity problem? (autoconf
2.5x has been shown before to be enough of a compatiblity disaster
that we'v
Hello,
I am getting into all sorts of problems trying to keep kerberos4kth
support in Heimdal.
If I keep it, I get grave bug reports that the package cannot get built
because of a build loop with kerberos4kth.
If I remove it, I get grave bug reports complaining that kerberos4kth is
no longer sup
8 matches
Mail list logo
