[Top][All Lists]
[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