Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/06/11/16:09:56
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> Hello Jay,
>
> * On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:02:00AM +0000 Jay wrote:
> <remaining parts left intact for reference on the ML>
>
>> Dave, thanks, it is exactly binutils/gcc I'm interested in.
>> Thank you for proving I'm not crazy -- there really is a problem.
As your attorney, I advise you to take the fifth!
>> Could be due to your work that cygwin is the best/easiest platform
>> here (but so slow to fork. :( ).
Ah, flattery. Actually, it's *bribery* that will get you everywhere, but a
bit of flattery always helps the process along.
>> I was/am not aware of what the version macros achieve.
>> You know, I mean...ignoring binutils/gcc, though they are relevant,
>> would I install versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. (made up versions)
>> all to different prefix, put all the prefixes/bin in $PATH and
>> the version macros search $PATH?
>> Or do all the tools append versions to all their directories/files?
>>
>>
>> You know, ideally..ideally what I would do is
>> download "every" version of autoconf/automake
>> configure and install them all with no flags
>> put /usr/local/bin in $PATH
>> and as long as I defined "every" correct/sufficient, be able to
>> make arbitrary edits to arbitrary projects, and just run
>> the usual configure+make on them and the right thing would happen.
>>
>> Or even, better yet, error if I don't have the matching version
>> of autoconfigure/automake, perhaps guided by a flag one way
>> or the other.
Errrr.... have you ever actually looked at the selection of automake and
autoconf packages in the cygwin distro? What we already have is largely what
you describe above.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -