On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> Le mer, aoû 01, 2001, à 08:31:17 -0500, Lars Clausen a écrit:
>
[...]
> Not talking for the RPM side, of which I'm pretty much ignorant (out of
> lack of necessity).
Me too, but I still don't want to have them go through hoops to compile.
Incidentally, how many Dia developers use RPM-based systems (please reply
to me by email, and I'll summarize)?
> However, for the debian side, I beg to differ:
>
> auric% cd /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/DONE
> auric% pwd
> /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/DONE
> auric% ls -l autoconf*2.5*
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 troup Debian 1927 May 21 16:30 autoconf_2.50-1_i386.changes
[...]
> (easily verifiable through http://incoming.debian.org/DONE, but I didn't
> feel like downloading the whole page) (I wonder why the buildd's aren't
> picking that package ?)
Well, it takes some time to get through to testing.
> However,... <NMI/>
>
> let's stop that. I've just checked again. There is no AC_LANG_PUSH,
> except in aclocal.m4 (which won't be a problem if it's generated by an
> older autotools) I must have used them at one point, then removed
> them. And kept remembering the requirement.
I see. Smurf happens.
> Please comment out the AC_PREREQ and AC_REVISION statements in
> configure.in, these are the only autoconf features we're using for the
> moment (IIRC, which isn't self-evident).
Done.
> However, the moment I really
> need an autoconf 2.50 feature (or such feature cuts a dozen lines of
> ac2.13 code), I'll not hesitate a second. If people need RPMs for recent
> versions of autoconf, they'll have the alien(1) tool if rpmfind.net
> fails.
True. I hope this won't be until 2.50 is more commonly available.
-Lars
--
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause) | Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I | Retainer of Sir Kegg
will defend to the death your right to say it." | of Westfield
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | Chaos Berserker of Khorne