On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:11:20PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
...
> > Also, we not long ago went through the exercise of making sure that all
> > committers were standardized on the same version of Autoconf, ie, 2.13.
> > Now it emerges that hub.org is r
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I always telnet into hub to run autoconf. I have a little script in my
> > ~momjian/bin directory called pgautoconf that does that, and cvs commits
> > the changes.
>
> That's exactly the problem, the version on hub.org
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> The patches ad, ae, and af will cause configure to fail on machines
> >> without mktemp. It's not like things get "screwed up" for me, but the
> >> point of Autoconf is portability to *all* machines, so FreeBSD-
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker writes:
>
> > Okay, autoconf on hub.org is based on what is in ports ... the only
> > "custom patches" are that which are in /usr/ports/devel/autoconf/patches,
> > and I just went through them and there doesn't look like anything *o
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Are there any platforms that do not have mktemp? Hard to imagine.
mktemp(1) or mktemp(3)?
The latter is pretty much universal (and dangerous too).
The former is, AFAICS, available only on some Linux and BSD.
But it's under the BSD licence, and is not
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The patches ad, ae, and af will cause configure to fail on machines
>> without mktemp. It's not like things get "screwed up" for me, but the
>> point of Autoconf is portability to *all* machines, so FreeBSD-specific
>> changes/optimizations(?) seem mis
> The Hermit Hacker writes:
>
> > Okay, autoconf on hub.org is based on what is in ports ... the only
> > "custom patches" are that which are in /usr/ports/devel/autoconf/patches,
> > and I just went through them and there doesn't look like anything *odd* in
> > there ... can you look at those pa
The Hermit Hacker writes:
> Okay, autoconf on hub.org is based on what is in ports ... the only
> "custom patches" are that which are in /usr/ports/devel/autoconf/patches,
> and I just went through them and there doesn't look like anything *odd* in
> there ... can you look at those patches and te
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I always telnet into hub to run autoconf. I have a little script in my
> > ~momjian/bin directory called pgautoconf that does that, and cvs commits
> > the changes.
>
> That's exactly the problem, the version on hub.org is custom-patched for
> FreeBSD and has signi
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I always telnet into hub to run autoconf. I have a little script in my
> > ~momjian/bin directory called pgautoconf that does that, and cvs commits
> > the changes.
>
> That's exactly the problem, the version on hub.org
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I always telnet into hub to run autoconf. I have a little script in my
> ~momjian/bin directory called pgautoconf that does that, and cvs commits
> the changes.
That's exactly the problem, the version on hub.org is custom-patched for
FreeBSD and has significant loser pot
I always telnet into hub to run autoconf. I have a little script in my
~momjian/bin directory called pgautoconf that does that, and cvs commits
the changes.
> I have noticed that some operating system distributors ship custom-patched
> versions of Autoconf. That is pretty brain-dead because so
12 matches
Mail list logo
