On 7/24/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Pegg wrote these words on 07/24/05 20:58 CST: > > On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > >>included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we > >>don't need the automake patch. > >> > >>--Tushar. > > > > > > Does this ring any bells: > > http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=705 > > This is funny to me. :-) > > A guy makes some changes to BLFS, then a bunch of months later asks: > > Why the hell did we make these changes, they're not needed! >
Blame it on Alizimer's :-) Actually, once David mentioned the automake thing, I did remember that I was the person who had made the change, but Thomas beat me to it. Also, to be honest, I wanted to know why the change was made since the explaination I(?) wrote did not seem to be be correct. This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently <http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2005-July/052280.html>. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
