[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: FYI: 36-gary-revert-some-m4_defines.patch

From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: FYI: 36-gary-revert-some-m4_defines.patch
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:03:56 +0000

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:47, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> | On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 11:17, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> |> AC_ARG_ENABLE(ltdl-install,
> |>-    [AC_HELP_STRING([--disable-ltdl-install], [do not install libltdl])])
> |>+    [AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-ltdl-install], [do not install libltdl])])
> |> if test x"${enable_ltdl_install+set}" != xset; then
> |>   enable_ltdl_install=yes
> |>   ac_configure_args="$ac_configure_args --enable-ltdl-install"
> |>
> |
> | Are you really sure you mean AS_HELP_STRING there?  Since this update, I
> | get a macro not found error there ... I'm convinced this was an
> | accidental change?
> It was introduced after Autoconf 2.57,
Yeah. I see that now, with all the confusion over whether 2.58 was
actually released or not, and whether 2.59 is released yet; I hadn't
caught up on the changes and missed it.

> and is only a bootstrap dependency.  I'd quite like to keep it in, for
> my current drive for modernising libtool's configury.  However, I haven't
> got especially strong feelings about it.  If upgrading your Autoconf is
> difficult, and you'd prefer to revert that part of the patch instead,
> that's okay too.
Nope, no problem upgrading -- I've no problem with requiring the latest
things for bootstrap.

> Otherwise I should AC_PREREQ(2.58) to get a sensible error message.
Yup, this is needed :)

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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