Hi all,
By accident, I just typed in this (autoconf/CVS):
# autoconf --add-missing
autoconf: option `--add-missing' requires an argument
This urged me to play with autoconf's options:
# autoconf --add=missing
/usr/bin/m4: Cannot open missing/autoconf.m4f: No such file or
directory
# autoconf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> This indicates that autoconf's option parsing doesn't evaluate the
> '--'es correctly, ...
May I fix it? :-)
Hello, Ralf!
> # autoconf --add-missing
> autoconf: option `--add-missing' requires an argument
It's my bug. I'll fix it. Thank you for the report.
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
| AFAIS, apparent cause are the --?* clauses in autoconf.sh:
|
| > --autoconf-dir | --a* | -A )
| >test $# = 1 && eval "$exit_missing_arg"
| >shift
Yep, I'm in favor of removing all the --a* etc. it makes it uselessly
ambiguous, and short options are a better means to abbrev
On Nov 7, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I'm in favor of removing all the --a* etc. it makes it uselessly
> ambiguous, and short options are a better means to abbreviate. And
> trying to support exact abbreviations, as is done in configure, is an
> additional tedious main
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yep, I'm in favor of removing all the --a* etc. it makes it
>> uselessly ambiguous, and short options are a better means to
>> abbreviate. And trying to support exact abbreviations, as is done
>> in configure, is an additional t
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yep, I'm in favor of removing all the --a* etc. it makes it uselessly
> > ambiguous, and short options are a better means to abbreviate. And
> > trying to support exact abbreviations, as is done in config
Hello, Bruce!
> > --foo=* | --fo=* | --f=*
>
> Such a macro would have to keep track of whether or not
> there was a --fumble=xxx option, too. Of course, I *do*
> have a shell script option processing generator that does
> all this stuff automatically
You didn't tell us _where_ you have it
Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello, Bruce!
>
> > > --foo=* | --fo=* | --f=*
> >
> > Such a macro would have to keep track of whether or not
> > there was a --fumble=xxx option, too. Of course, I *do*
> > have a shell script option processing generator that does
> > all this stuff automatically
>
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> It doesn't mean that we have eliminate all common code right
Pavel> now, but it would be nice to start the conversion process now,
Pavel> e.g. with the option parcer.
We have to finish M4sh first, and extract an autoscript or somet
On Nov 9, 2000, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, Peter!
>> Exactly where do the GNU standards say anything about long option
>> abbreviation?
> Well, whenever I don't check something I'm punished for that :-)
Oops. Ditto :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://ww
Pavel Roskin writes:
> I realize that we are in the beta stage, but releasing Autoconf violating
> GNU standards is not good.
Exactly where do the GNU standards say anything about long option
abbreviation?
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 10:43:38AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I can't wait for Gary's M4
Me either =)O|
Unfortunately, Rene has been too busy to reply to the half-dozen
emails I have sent him in the last 4 or five months. Any thoughts on
how I can get write access to the CVS repo on subversi
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 10:43:38AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> I can't wait for Gary's M4
Gary> Me either =)O|
Gary> Unfortunately, Rene has been too busy to reply to the half-dozen
Gary> emails I have sent him in the last 4 or
Akim Demaille wrote:
>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Gary> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 10:43:38AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
>>> I can't wait for Gary's M4
>>
>
> Gary> Me either =)O|
>
> Gary> Unfortunately, Rene has been too busy to reply to the half-d
Hello, Peter!
> Exactly where do the GNU standards say anything about long option
> abbreviation?
Well, whenever I don't check something I'm punished for that :-)
Alexandre wrote that. I just repeated after him. I couldn't find anything in
standards.texi about abbreviations.
So it's probably a
Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello, Peter!
>
> > Exactly where do the GNU standards say anything about long option
> > abbreviation?
>
> Well, whenever I don't check something I'm punished for that :-)
>
> Alexandre wrote that. I just repeated after him. I couldn't find anything in
> standards.texi
17 matches
Mail list logo
