Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:40:31 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: "Tim Van Holder" Message-Id: <9003-Thu12Apr2001214030+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: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: Subject: Re: New bash 2.04 beta release References: Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: "Tim Van Holder" > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:15:45 +0200 > > > Also, there are important packages that still don't use Autoconf. One > > notable example is GDB, where the gdb/ subdirectory is not > > autoconfiscated yet. > Hmm... from gdb/configure.in: > > dnl Autoconf configure script for GDB, the GNU debugger. > dnl Copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 > dnl Free Software Foundation, Inc. That's not a proof: the fact that someone uses Autoconf to produce a configure script doesn't yet mean the package uses _only_ Autoconf to configure itself. Makefile.in, for example, is hand-crafted, Automake is not used, there are all those *.mt and *.mh files, and some subdirectories are not under Autoconf. The same is true for Emacs. > But if configure uses only $ac_path_separator, which would have been found > as ';', it would not be able to walk the path if PATH_SEPARATOR is set to > ':'. That's not something Autoconf should care about. If a user wants to shoot herself in the foot, it's not Autoconf's business to prevent her from doing that. > There could only be a problem if someone has > > PATH_SEPARATOR = @PATH_SEPARATOR@ That's what I thought was planned. Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about this. You've asked for opinions; you have mine, and I stand by it, even now. Since you are doing the work (thanks!), you get to decide what to do about my opinions.