Re: problem with one tree style builds
> What is the recommended procedure to regenerate them? Not sure there is one. > Shouldn't they be regenerated and committed in CVS? No, because that changes the base requirements for all those packages.
Re: problem with one tree style builds
DJ Delorie wrote: I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't have see it based upon that requirement. What else could it be? Did you re-generate all the configure's from all the configure.ac's? The ones in CVS are all built with 2.59. No. Not unless gcc_update does it. What is the recommended procedure to regenerate them? Shouldn't they be regenerated and committed in CVS? --joel
Re: problem with one tree style builds
> I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from > yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't have see it based > upon that requirement. What else could it be? Did you re-generate all the configure's from all the configure.ac's? The ones in CVS are all built with 2.59.
Re: problem with one tree style builds
DJ Delorie wrote: http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00472.html Shouldn't this patch already be in the top level gcc/Makefile.in? The right fix is to use autoconf 2.60 or later. I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't have see it based upon that requirement. What else could it be? The patch you link to requires GNU make, and thus was rejected. OK. --joel
Re: problem with one tree style builds
> http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00472.html > > Shouldn't this patch already be in the top level > gcc/Makefile.in? The right fix is to use autoconf 2.60 or later. The patch you link to requires GNU make, and thus was rejected.
