Re: Are DJGPP patches for autoconf welcome?

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <address@hidden> writes:

>> | I'm in the process of updating my patched files to 2.49b. What I
>> would | like to know is whether patches for DJGPP support would be
>> welcomed.  Yes, but fast if not already too late.  Small patches.
Tim> That's OK - I basically wanted to know whether integrating DJGPP
Tim> support was acceptable; whether it gets into 2.50 or 3.0 doesn't
Tim> really matter that much (DJGPP will have its own packages
Tim> released anyway).

So I'd rather wait for 2.51, but for dumb stupid changes.

Tim> No, the idea was that DJGPP source packages usually come
Tim> preconfigured (so the user can just type 'make' and be done with
Tim> it. AC_PATH_PROG stores a full path however, making this
Tim> difficult (as PC's don't have a standardized tree structure). 

Of course it makes it hard!  Why don't you let the user configure
themselves?  That you run a modified Autoconf seems logical.  That you
preconfigure sounds wrong.

>> | introduced (ac_pathsep, ac_test_f), but they're set to the
>> defaults for I don't like ac_test_f, and my understanding was that
>> it is no longer needed.  Promote upgrading DJGPP.
Tim> True, DJGPP's bash can be forced to find executables with -f. But
Tim> I consider this a broken approach. 

Yep, but merely introducing ac_test_f doesn't sound right either.  In
fact, it *is* on the list of things to change in Autoconf, but in a
cleaner way, which means much later.  There is something which works
today, that's all we need.

Tim> Alternatively, a test could be added looking for $foo.exe (as is
Tim> done in Perl's configure and in libtool, I think), 

Hm, not a bad idea, now that we have ac_exeext available.  Alexandre,
Pavel, any comment?

Tim> but this would not find scripts (.pl, .sh). 

Well, (i) check for foo, then (ii) foo$ac_exeext?