Sender: tim AT riker DOT skynet DOT be
Message-ID: <3B5EC14F.BBC8CF8A@falconsoft.be>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:53:35 +0200
From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
Organization: Anubex N.V.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-3 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en, nl-BE, nl
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com,
        pjfarley3 AT escape DOT com
Subject: Re: autoconf 2.50 question -- still need to run against unix scripts?
References: <3b5e44be DOT 33943055 AT news DOT escape DOT com> <9jm373$g23$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <3B5EA712 DOT A55E6738 AT falconsoft DOT be> <9jmd55$pk4$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> Tim Van Holder <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, bash has several workarounds for such issues, but I've tried
> > very hard to get these things supported by autoconf directly so they
> > will no longer be needed for configure scripts.  Aside from proper
> > executable extension support (which may make it into autoconf 2.53
> > mainline, and is already present in the 2.50 DJGPP release), that is
> > now the case.
> 
> I.e. nobody should have to run autoconf-2.50 on their own, just to be
> able to compile existing Unix sources with a 2.50-generated configure
> script, right? IOW: the only persons really needing the autoconf-2.50
> port for DJGPP would be program authors using DJGPP to maintain
> Unix-native packages, then.

Hopefully, yes - once the few DJGPP patches I have left are integrated
in mainline autoconf, this will almost be the case (the only issue left
is portably detecting the list of executable extensions to try).

> I like that prospect.
So do I.  But I suspect older configures will be around for quite a
while.

> >> No, it isn't. autoconf-2.50 is a beta release,
> 
> > autoconf 2.50 is NOT a beta release.
> 
> Sorry to cause confusion, here. You're right, of course. In fact, it's
> not autoconf-2.50 itself that's not officially released. Looks like I
> let myself be mislead by a broken mirror of www.gnu.org not mentioning
> any autoconf release at all.
> 
> It's automake and libtool that cause problem, instead. AFAIK, there is
> no official version of automake yet that correctly works in
> conjunction with autoconf-2.50.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the latest 1.4 patch release (1.4-p6?) works
with autoconf 2.50.  The 1.4-p* series are official releases, intended
to solve the major automake issues, so people aren't required to
upgrade to 1.5 when it is released.
libtool may be another question; all I can say is that the current CVS
version seems to work just fine.

-- 
Tim Van Holder - Anubex N.V.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was posted using plain text. I do not endorse any
products or services that may be hyperlinked to this message.