Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3C0B1B9A.3F88A6A6@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:28:42 -0500 From: Charles Wilson Organization: Georgia Tech X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8-26mdk i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Porter CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Restructuring the automake and autoconf packages References: <20011203061606 DOT 27380 DOT qmail AT web10408 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Brett Porter wrote: > > > 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. > No, in the context of shells, 'export' means that subshells will inherit the value (it does NOT mean that parent shell will "inherit" anything). If you *don't* export, then the subprocesses WON'T see the new value at all, and the new PATH is only valid within the current script -- but not within called scripts, and probably not even within exec'ed scripts because the #!/bin/sh of the exec'ed script will start up a new subshell... > > 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 out of date' release.)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. But that's precisely the thing that is NOT true here. You *can't* use autoconf-2.50 with a 2.13-based configure.in without changes. So, AC_PREREQ(X) == 'stable' if X <= 2.13, 'devel' if X > 2.13. The only remaining case is X undefined, which I (arbitrarily) mapped to 'devel'. > 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. Bingo. > Like I said, food for thought. Probably not worth > debating though. BTW, I'm confused. I never got the original message "Restructioning the automake and autoconf packages" in my inbox. I can't find it in the cygwin, cygwin-announce, or cygwin-developers archives. Brett, where did you see the original message to which you initially replied? Did I just lose some email cause of the ATT problems? --Chuck -- 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/