Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

Hello all, maybe anyone can help me with this. I downloaded automake 1.9. Configure displays a message saying: checking whether autoconf is recent enough . . . no configure: error: Autoconf 2.58 or better is required. Using: # which autoconf /usr/local/bin/autoconf # autoconf -V

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

>>> "Meussen" == Meussen Erik IT415 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Meussen> Hello all, Meussen> maybe anyone can help me with this. I downloaded Meussen> automake 1.9. Configure displays a message saying: Meussen> checking whether autoconf is recent enough . . . no Meussen> configure: error: A

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 21:12 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >>> "Meussen" == Meussen Erik IT415 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Meussen> Hello all, > > Meussen> maybe anyone can help me with this. I downloaded > Meussen> automake 1.9. Configure displays a message saying: > > Meussen> ch

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ralf> On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 21:12 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: >> >>> "Meussen" == Meussen Erik IT415 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Meussen> checking whether autoconf is recent enough . . . no Meussen> configure: error: Autocon

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not > understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the > reporter. I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org lists, because they tend to be unreli

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ralf> On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not >> understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the >> reporter. Ralf> I normally respond CC:-in

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the reporter. I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org l

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

Thomas Dickey wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org lists, because > > they tend to be unreliable. Not have done so in this case was just an > > oversight. > > otoh, when I do that, I usually get 2-3 complaints from people stating > that I shou

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 07:01 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > > >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not > >> understand why you respond to bug reports without C

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:39:16AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 07:01 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > > > > >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 03:18 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Only the > sender can do anything better than this, because they're the only one > with the necessary information. Its not at all clear to me that they have sufficient information. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 07:01 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > > >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not > >> understand why you respond to bug reports without C

CCing list replies (was: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?)

Hi Alexandre, * Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:15:31PM CET: > > PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not > understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the > reporter. We are all losers with this: you waste your time > writing an answ

Re: CCing list replies (was: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?)

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not addressed at me, but I also had to learn the hard way > that > - some gnu.org lists but not all automatically exclude subscribers if > they are listed in To: or Cc:. This is customizable, see the mailman options page. Andreas. -- Andr

Re: CCing list replies (was: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?)

In this case I looked at the list of people in the discussion, knew they were all subscribed, and intentionally mailed only to the list. ;-) Andreas Schwab wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is not addressed at me, but I also had to learn the hard way > > that > > - some