* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 08:48:51PM CEST: > At Thursday 10 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Yes. The changes are ok if you split the patch into one purely > > without semantic changes, and the rest (so that we don't need to > > revert the former when the latter turns out to be bad); > Seems sensible. Agreed.
The patches 1/3 and 2/3 are ok now for maint, thanks. > Since I was at it, I also wrote a third patch, which adds code (again > stolen from autoconf) to ensure that the bootstap script is run in > bourne-compatibility mode. Is there any indication this change is needed? It looks ok, and I'm not against it if you plan on adding code later that needs it, but otherwise would prefer to not add this just for the heck of it. Thanks, Ralf