[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:29:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> writes:
>> Please don't make this last change in Autoconf. AC_HEADER_STDBOOL in
>> Autoconf works well right now for people who do not use gnulib,
> Agreed. I am one of these users.
>
>> and I
>> don't think that it's a good idea to mark obsolescent a working Autoconf
>> macro to try to "push" people towards using gnulib instead.
> Agreed, again.
>
> For real-world projects, gnulib often is not a viable alternative.
Could you explain why? There are several real-world projects that use
gnulib, so I'm curious what the perceived reasons against it are. I'm
genuinely interested in the answer to the question, it is not just
rethoric because I happen to disagree.
I can understand if you are building non-free software you would not
want to use gnulib due to license reasons, but you could still use
autoconf. However, I'm not sure this is the problem you are thinking of
or if there is some technical or other reason.
/Simon
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H,
Simon Josefsson <=
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Ralf Corsepius, 2011/02/01
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Eric Blake, 2011/02/01
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Ralf Corsepius, 2011/02/01
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Eric Blake, 2011/02/01
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/01
- Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/04
Re: HAVE_STDBOOL_H, AC_HEADER_STDBOOL, and AM_STDBOOL_H, Russ Allbery, 2011/02/01