Bruce> Bootstrap-Bash could use a frozen version of configure.
This means freezing at least one copy of Bash. Doable.
But I still think it might be a bit too soon. I don't see the urgency
to move to shell functions, but I do see how they can simplify our
lives.
> I don't see the urgency to move to shell functions, but I do
> see how they can simplify our lives.
Uh... "if not now, when"?
Seriously, there's _always_ commercial incentive to do a half assed
job and the _real_ ego competition is to reject that incentive and do
a good jo
The Autoconf team -- Akim, Alexandre, Jim, Paul, and Tom -- is happy
to annonce the birth of Autoconf 2.56, aka 2.55 with a packaging
problem fixed.
- Why should I upgrade from 2.54?
A few bug fixes, improved portability, no known incompatibility with
2.54 and 2.55, forthcoming Gettext release
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce> Bootstrap-Bash could use a frozen version of configure.
> This means freezing at least one copy of Bash. Doable.
What about someone (probably a user of a machine that actually needs it)
writing a shell function inliner?
ltmain.sh could be postpr
Robert,
I just noticed this change
2002-10-23 Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ltmain.in: Do not add 1 to the version under IRIX, it is
not necessary.
in CVS libtool. I couldn't find any rationale for it in the archives, and
fear that it might be a dangerous incompatible cha
Title: RE: Version numbering change on IRIX
Rainer,
This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
think of to find out why t
Robert,
> This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
> Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
> think of to find out why this was done in the first place, but found
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:18:35PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Bash uses configure.
>
> And so does ash :-( which was my first thought for working around this
> problem. On the other hand, is it so terrible to ask that those who
> wish to continue using systems wi
Christopher Currie wrote:
> I don't have a problem with libtool using shell
> functions; all POSIX compliant shells are supposed to support them. The
> danger here is that if we make libtool dependent on some specific shell
> feature, do we not make any software that uses libtool dependent on that
Also sprach Akim Demaille:
}
} ** autom4te
}
} - Supports --cache, and --no-cache.
}
} - ~/.autom4te.cfg makes it possible to disable the caching mechanism
} (autom4te.cache). See `Customizing autom4te' in the documentation.
}
This doesn't work.
[dangermouse self_installed] ls -ACF
autoconf
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> > about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
> > Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
Congratulations! Are you handing out cigars? ;-).
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
12 matches
Mail list logo
