Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:10:40 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
Message-Id: <3405-Tue24Jul2001191039+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: pjfarley3 AT escape DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3B5D8290.59ABA137@falconsoft.be> (message from Tim Van Holder on
	Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:13:36 +0200)
Subject: Re: Which config.site should be used, bash or autoconf 2.50?
References: <3b5b44b8 DOT 11468978 AT news DOT escape DOT com> <3B5D8290 DOT 59ABA137 AT falconsoft DOT be>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:13:36 +0200
> From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
> 
> Bash does not require config.site for proper operation; it just packages
> that file because it was mainly used to enable some special features of
> our bash that helped run configure scripts.
> You need autoconf 2.50's config.site in order to run configure scripts
> generated by _our_ autoconf 2.50 (the path-searching using execuatble
> extensions isn't in mainline autoconf yet).
> So basically, you will probably want autoconf 2.50's config.site in
> $DJDIR/share, but you will either need to regenerate all configure
> scripts you want to run using autoconf 2.50 (not always easy to do, as
> many 2.13 configure.in scripts rely on undocumented internal variables
> and/or macros that ceased to work in 2.50), or set TEST_FINDS_EXE=y
> first (otherwise, no programs will be found).
> Or you can rename either one (say, have config.site and confsite.213),
> and set CONFIG_SITE to point to the one you want to use.

Are you saying that config.site in the Autoconf distribution can be
used with configure scripts generated by the ported Autoconf, but not
with configure scripts generated on Unix?  And that config.site
distributed with Bash will not work with configure scripts generated
by the ported Autoconf?  I.e. these two files are incompatible?

If that's indeed so, I think it's not a Good Thing.  People should be
able to install one of these two versions of config.site and be able
to run configure scripts provided by source packages without a fuss.