Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<20011203061606.27380.qmail@web10408.mail.yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:16:06 -0800 (PST)
From:	Brett Porter <brettporter AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Restructuring the automake and autoconf packages
To:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<3C0B15E8.65B8BFDE@ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0

> No.  The new path setting is only good for *called*
> processes in the
> same fork/exec chain.  The parent shell's PATH is
> not modified, so once
> 'autoconf' finishes and you drop back into your
> interactive shell, your
> old PATH is back in effect.
>  

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. The message said it
EXPORTs the var - but I haven't yet looked at the
scripts themselves (later) - I assumed it exported it
back to the shell so you could not call the wrapper.

> Yeah, I understand.  Alternatively, you can argue: 
> assume that everyone
> has up to date tools.  Therefore, if you want older
> versions, you must
> AC_PREREQ them.  (Note that our 'devel' tree is
> actually the official
> stable current release, and our 'stable' tree is
> actually the 'old and
> out of date' release.)
>  

I thought that was a funny naming when I read it, but
I can't think of a better one. How about "ancient" and
"current"? :)

The reason for my argument is that I thought AC_PREREQ
was a >= relationship. ie if you PREREQ(2.13), then
anything higher is OK. I don't know how it is
implemented (bad me, never used it myself) - but even
this wouldn't make a lot of sense as 2.52 isn't
backwards compatible.
Like I said, food for thought. Probably not worth
debating though.

> Well, hopefully we'll get there.  I've been running
> into connectivity
> problems (ATT AT home) so that's slowed me down a lot.
> 

Sorry to hear that - it's pretty rough. We've lost 2
major ISPs here (none of the cable guys yet though) in
the last year. Luckily wasn't on them. My current one
is a bit of a joke though - regular drop-outs when the
modem shifts speed, if you can even get on at all.
Their solution was to dial a number that locked in
31200 bps!
Good luck...
- Brett



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -