On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:54:00PM +0100, Andreas Maus wrote: > Hi. > > On 12/4/06, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ autoconf > >Provide an AUTOCONF_VERSION environment variable, please > Yes. Just do it. e.g.: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ env | grep AUTO > AUTOMAKE_VERSION=1.9 > AUTOCONF_VERSION=2.59 > > >I suggest this error message to be extended with a pointer to information > >how to set this environment variable. As I wrote, I didn't find any manpage > You are kidding, aren't you ?
No. > > Setting up environment variables depends on your shell. > csh/tcsh uses setenv and sh/ksh/bash uses export No I mean explanation how the user obtains a list of available numbers and how to select from them. > > >but maybe there is some URL explaining this topic. > No, because you should have at least basic Un*x knowledge. I have a basic Unix knowledge. Do you think that someone who wrote 25% of a graphical web browser that runs on the following platforms: Linux, BSD, UNIX in general, OS/2, Cygwin under Windows, AtheOS, BeOS, FreeMint, X Window System (UN*X, Cygwin), SVGAlib, Linux Framebuffer, OS/2 PMShell, AtheOS GUI, doesn't have a basic Unix knowledge? If the autoconf message included a pointer to the URL explaining this topic it would save me and other people's time. When I go to google and try to find it it wastes a lot of time dealing with false positives. Please try to understand the core of the problem in the following comparison: This answer is an equivalent to "we didn't put labels on the buttons on TV remote control because this information can be obtained from the user's manual". I don't understand what's the point in refusing to do this - this looks like some kind of OpenBSD script and it should be easy to change the text it prints, shouldn't? I guess the work will be minimal and the benefit will be obvious. CL< > > Andreas. > > -- > Hobbes : Shouldn't we read the instructions? > Calvin : Do I look like a sissy?
