libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: autotools versions and WORKING_LIBOBJ_SUPPORT


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: autotools versions and WORKING_LIBOBJ_SUPPORT
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:11:04 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Hi Eric,

* Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:55:35PM CET:
> According to Ralf Wildenhues on 3/25/2006 4:12 AM:
> > 
> > This sucks.  I sent this three days ago, and it has still has not
> > appeared on the list.  This develops to be a real problem for
> > communication.  :-(
> 
> Agreed.  The list response seems to be faster lately,

Well, ATM the problems are different: either the mail goes through right
away, or it simply vanishes.  I am collecting some Message-IDs right now
to send to the list admins.  There must be something wrong if I send 3
mails to the same list within 10 minutes, the first and third appear
after 30 seconds, the second does not appear for more than 3 days.  :-(

> but I still wish
> lists.gnu.org would do the same instant web-archiving given to lists
> hosted on sourceware.org (such as gcc or cygwin).

Use gmane.org for web searching.  I wish somebody would take the gmane
code and make it easily usable, and then I wish lists.gnu.org would just
use that for archiving (and spam weeding, for example).

> > I have taken liberty to just apply the patch for now.  Review would
> > still be nice..
> > 
> >>    * bootstrap: Enable `WORKING_LIBOBJ_SUPPORT' if we detect
> >>    Autoconf-2.60+ and Automake-1.10+, or CVS versions.
> 
> Looks right to me this time, and I think it was okay that you applied it.

Thanks!

>  However, do we also need a separate patch to README-alpha stating that
> the use of CVS autoconf/automake only works with a checkout newer than
> <insert date here>, and also mentioning that stable autoconf 2.59 and
> automake 1.9 are supposed to also be usable (albeit potentially slower)?

No, I do assume that users of CVS versions keep more-or-less up to date
(and the autoconf/automake changes have been applied several months
ago).  This isn't exactly a new assumption, it happens rather often in
the autotools.  After all, you are expected to read the mailing lists
when using the CVS versions.

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]