On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, at 10:07 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, at 3:27 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
>>> 11: autoconf: forbidden tokens, basic FAILED (tools.at:481)
>>> So far I got it on aarch64 and s390x. Timing issue maybe ?
>>
>> Yeah, this
Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, at 3:27 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:22 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
I also get this one that fails once in a while (3 failures out of 12
executions):
11: autoconf: forbidden tokens, basic FAILED (tools.at:481)
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 7:41 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 12/20/23 08:16, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
>> for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
>> Testing in Windows- and Darwin-bas
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, at 3:27 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:22 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I also get this one that fails once in a while (3 failures out of 12
> executions):
>
> 11: autoconf: forbidden tokens, basic FAILED (tools.at:481)
>
> So far I got it
On 12/20/23 08:16, Zack Weinberg wrote:
autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
Testing in Windows- and Darwin-based environments would be
particularly helpful. Testing your own project’s configure.ac
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:22 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> > I admit I usually don't build the package for i386 since autoconf isn't
> > arch dependent, but I did it this time and there are few test failures:
> >
> > 420: AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> I admit I usually don't build the package for i386 since autoconf isn't
> arch dependent, but I did it this time and there are few test failures:
>
> 420: AC_SYS_LARGEFILEFAILED (semantics.at:908)
> 421:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 5:17 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
> for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
> Testing in Windows- and Darwin-
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 5:17 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
> for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
> Testing in Windows- and Darwin-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
Testing in Windows- and Darwin-based environments would be
particularly helpful. Testing your own projectâs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
autoconf-2.72e is now available. This is a *release candidate*
for autoconf 2.72 final. Please test it as thoroughly as possible.
Testing in Windows- and Darwin-based environments would be
particularly helpful. Testing your own projectâs
;
> I have tagged and uploaded autoconf-2.69e this morning. It is a
> release candidate. Because I have almost no time to work on autoconf
> between now and early January, I intend to make the final release of
> 2.70 in one week (on 2020-12-08) *whether or not* the above two bugs
> ha
AC_DEFUN (#110294)
* `AX_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD` broken with 2.69c (#110350)
I have tagged and uploaded autoconf-2.69e this morning. It is a
release candidate. Because I have almost no time to work on autoconf
between now and early January, I intend to make the final release of
2.70 in one week (on 2020
Hi people,
This is a release candidate for Automake 1.9.
If you have some time, please help us tracking down bugs by trying
this beta with your packages and reporting any issue you encounter.
Especially, please shout loud if your package works with 1.8.5 but
does not with 1.8d.
I plan
On May 14, 2001, Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it common to use a macro that expands to an lvalue?
We've been using this to rename variables but keep them working for
backward compatibility.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC
Harlan == Harlan Stenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harlan What version(s) of automake should be used with this
Harlan candidate?
I'm unsure I understand what you mean.
Autoconf is independent from Automake, so any Automake should work
properly. If 1.4 breaks with it, it's a show stopper. If
| There is still the problem that autoconf mixes up variable assignments
| and macros. This is up-to-the-minute CVS autoconf:
|
| steve@riemann{tmp}cat configure.in
| AC_INIT
|
| AM_CFLAGS=foo
| steve@riemann{tmp}autoconf
| configure.in:3: error:
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:32:13PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
| There is still the problem that autoconf mixes up variable assignments
| and macros. This is up-to-the-minute CVS autoconf:
|
| steve@riemann{tmp}cat configure.in
| AC_INIT
|
| AM_CFLAGS=foo
|
Akim Demaille writes:
| There is still the problem that autoconf mixes up variable assignments
| and macros. This is up-to-the-minute CVS autoconf:
|
| steve@riemann{tmp}cat configure.in
| AC_INIT
|
| AM_CFLAGS=foo
| steve@riemann{tmp}autoconf
|
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:50:50PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
| On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:57:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
| Akim Demaille writes:
|
| | There is still the problem that autoconf mixes up variable assignments
| | and macros. This is up-to-the-minute CVS
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:57:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Akim Demaille writes:
| There is still the problem that autoconf mixes up variable assignments
| and macros. This is up-to-the-minute CVS autoconf:
|
| steve@riemann{tmp}cat configure.in
| AC_INIT
|
What version(s) of automake should be used with this candidate?
H
From: Harlan Stenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:05:36 -0400
What version(s) of automake should be used with this candidate?
I have been using recent CVS snapshots of automake which I got from
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/. Currently I'm using a snapshot
that I took
Thanks!
I have been using
:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/automake
to get automake.
What, if any, is the difference between this repository and the one at
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/
???
H
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 07:54:31PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
Please people, test it: the current state of Autoconf is our release
candidate. There is one issue that must be fixed before releasing,
namely the test `compile.at:AC_PROG_CPP via CC' is not robust to
broken cc for not using
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.utils.bug as well.
The Autoconf team is extremely proud (and quite relieved) to announce
the birth of Autoconf 2.49c, our release candidate. The core Autoconf
is not expected to change before the release, while
Akim Demaille wrote:
[...] Autoconf 2.49c, our release candidate. The core Autoconf
is not expected to change before the release, while the documentation
and minor details still need some work.
[...]
Autoconf can be downloaded from
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf
27 matches
Mail list logo
