Hey, On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:10:00PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:28:48AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:44:07PM +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > If neither of the first two are possible, I think this is reasonable > > compromise. We have a --disable-doc function, so a problem building > > makedoc can be worked around. I'd appreciate others input on the issue > > though. > > After getting through the compress stuff,
Thanks for that, btw! > I've started taking a closer > look at this. The first thing I discovered is that AC_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD > is not a part of autoconf. It's in an archive, and doesn't seem to be > well supported across different versions. So, I'm not sure I want to > add that in as a dependency to our build process. Please correct me if > I'm wrong though. No, you are spot on and I think this is the reason why helmut originally said that his patch is not optimal for upstream inclusion. > I think a better direction would be moving away from building our own > compile-time tools. Not having arch-specific build-time tools would also solve the issue, yeah. > For md5, we can use a built-in, or even just use perl's Digest::MD5. built-in like coreutils' md5sum? would prefer that over perl, tbh :) > I'll take a look at what would be involved in converting makedoc to perl > too, but I want to work on getting dgc's patches in first. Yeah, no worries. I don't think there is any hurry here. Just a bit of aid for ppl who want to bootstrap new archs and use mutt there (who wouln't?). Shall we create a track ticket to track this effort? Regards Evgeni
