On 06/05/2015 04:45 AM, Michael Felt wrote: [we tend to avoid top-posting on technical lists, as it makes it harder to follow the flow of the message]
> My "fear" is that autoconf has introduced this "catch-all" as I have been > running into it more frequently of late (first time was last November when > I took my first attempt at packaging gcc.) > Paul's patch was specific to a coreutils file. So far, I have not seen any evidence of autoconf introducing 'for x in ;' anywhere in configure. If you are seeing the same problem in multiple packages, so far it is because each package has made a similar mistake in their local configuration files. > I shall look at the patch and let you know - however, regardless of whether > it works or not - is this something that autoconf is introducing, read > changed - requiring you to make a patch. If so, while from autoconf > perspective all may be well - it is not very user-friendly. (I just do not > understand autoconf well enough to make that distinction). If the syntax error is in autoconf.ac or in Makefile.am, then it is the package that wrote the file at fault. If the syntax error is not in anything the package provides, but appears in the generated configure file, then it is more likely to be in automake or autoconf. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature