Subject: autoconf 2.13

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 06 Jan 1999 12:20:12 -0500

I'm using autoconf 2.13 and it seems to work well.  It provides a nice
macro for the select() args problem and it has some new nice macros
which we could possibly leverage with or in place of the personal stuff
Steve added in acinclude.m4 (although I haven't tried any of that yet).

What do people think?  Should we go there?  Are those of you who do
autoconfing willing to download and install it if I commit changes that
require it?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:16:10 -0500

> autoconfing willing to download and install it if I commit changes that

No point in   resisting change.  If you   want to take   us there, I'm
willing to follow.

> -- 
>  Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:21:02 -0500 (EST)

On 6 Jan 1999, Paul D. Smith wrote:

> What do people think?  Should we go there?

Yes, it sounds like there are useful things in there.  I'll be downloading
it presently.

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

Too cool to live -- too smart to die.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 23:28:08 +0100

> autoconfing willing to download and install it if I commit changes that

No problem. If there's no high risk of breaking up our build
environment...

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: Tak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:40:35 -0800

Is it absolutely REQUIRED?  ie: can I still use the autoconf 2.12?
I just repulled the 2.1.8 tip and found out that it requires a minimum
of autoconf 2.13.  Will 2.12 suffice?  ie: is anyone using the new
macros?   It's be nice if the minimum was 2.12 -- that way people with
2.13 could get it (and it's bug-fixes) while folks with the old 2.12
could still compile the tip...

-tak

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Jan 1999 17:17:17 -0600

>>>>> "T" == Tak  <[email-masked]> writes:

T> Is it absolutely REQUIRED?  ie: can I still use the autoconf 2.12?

You only need autoconf if you're going to be rebuilding configure.  If you
are, then 2.13 is required, but otherwise you don't need it at all.

T> I just repulled the 2.1.8 tip

What's a tip (in this context)?

If you're just pulling sources out of CVS and compiling them, you don't
need autoconf at all.

 - J<

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 12 Jan 1999 18:18:39 -0500

Yes, it's required.  Yes, we're using new macros in 2.13.  No, 2.12 will
not suffice.

:)

However, you shouldn't need _any_ version of autoconf unless you're
modifying configure.in, etc., since all the necessary files are already
in the tree.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:38:36 -0500 (EST)

> could still compile the tip...

Yes, 2.13 *is* required.  That's why configure.in is marked as such ;-) 
We're using at least one new macro: AC_FUNC_SELECT, which is rather neat. 

Also: there is a new automake 1.3d, though at present, none of the
Makefile.am's require 1.3d.  Still, there's a slight annoyance in that
1.3d obsoletes "AM_PROG_INSTALL", so I had to change it back to
"AC_PROG_INSTALL" in configure.in.  I don't think it causes any problems
for people using older automakes, but I don't know for sure ...

The problem it causes for me is that when someone with an older automake
checks in a rebuilt "aclocal.m4" file, it includes the "AM_PROG_INSTALL"
macro, and autoconf fails for me.

One easy solution to this latter problem is to just remove all the derived
files from CVS, as advocated last week.  I know that it requires people
using cvs sources to get autoconf & automake, but that's a very easy task
compared to installing cvs!

I included the auto*-built files in CVS initially because it was easier
during the transition to autoconf.  With the transition over, these files
are causing more problems than they solve, it seems to me.  How about we
give all interested parties one week, say, to install the auto* tools, and
then we remove the built files from the repository? 

A man came up to me and said, "I'd like to change your mind,
by hitting it with a rock," he said, "though I am not unkind."