Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If anyone would help me with using autoconf 2.53 on a newer system
> > (Sun Ultra 80 running Solaris 9)
>
> What sort of problems do you have with that environment?
>
> I am using Autoconf 2.57 on Solaris 9 and don't ha
"Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > changes were made to autoconf
> > What changes are you talking about, exactly?
> > > which made it incompatible with known, widely-used versions of Bourne shell
> > Which versions of the Bourne shell are you talking about here, exactly?
>
> I'd
"Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If anyone would help me with using autoconf 2.53 on a newer system
> (Sun Ultra 80 running Solaris 9)
What sort of problems do you have with that environment?
I am using Autoconf 2.57 on Solaris 9 and don't have any particular
problems to report.
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> "Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > changes were made to autoconf
>
> What changes are you talking about, exactly?
>
> > which made it incompatible with known, widely-used versions of
> > Bourne shell
>
> Which versions of the Bourne shell are you talkin
On Sun, 22 Feb 2003, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > changes were made to autoconf
>
> What changes are you talking about, exactly?
>
> > which made it incompatible with known, widely-used versions of
> > Bourne shell
>
> Which versions of the Bourne shell
"Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> changes were made to autoconf
What changes are you talking about, exactly?
> which made it incompatible with known, widely-used versions of
> Bourne shell
Which versions of the Bourne shell are you talking about here, exactly?
And which softare i
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, John Burger wrote:
> It seems to be explicitly against the philosophy of Autoconf to do
> anything in response to particular hardware or OS versions. Rather,
back to the original point - changes were made to autoconf which made
it incompatible with known, widely-used version
From: "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If the developers insist on dropping backward compatibility, would it
not be better to at least do a test for old hardware/software (i.e.
determine a machine is running SunOs 4.1.4), print an informative
error message then exit, rather than produce the
David Kirkby Ph.D,
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
former email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web page: http://www.david-kirkby.co.uk
Amateur radio callsign: G8WRB
On 21 Feb 2003, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the developers insist on dropping backw
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a question of invalid user input. This is a question of
> bugs in the operating system. Autoconf-generated scripts, no matter
> how well-written, cannot survive arbitrary OS bugs.
typical resp
"Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the developers insist on dropping backward compatibility, would it
> not be better to at least do a test for old hardware/software
I wouldn't bother myself, because such a test would be a maintenance
hassle. We don't have the resources to keep
Roger Leigh wrote:
> Even in the case of GCC, why can't you build, say, 2.7.2, and then
> bootstrap 2.95.x and then 3.2.x in succession? As long as there's an
> "upgrade path", there's no need for the current toolchain to be fully
> backward-compatible with every system out there.
Whether or not
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Siegerman wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, that brings up GCC. I know they have their own reasons for
> > sticking with 2.13 (or had, last time I checked), but AC's
> > dropping old-box support might be one more, given that GCC is
> > seen as (among other things)
I have a few "antique" computers. The first Compaq, A very early
Sun SPARC 1. a Mac before they offered a hard drive and others
Had a VAX too, but no place to store it and some guy offered me
$1,500 for the tape drive...
These machines are only worth keeping if you still have the old
software t
Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
> I guess it's time for me to chime in.
>
> Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
That's very nice. Why does he need to do this? I mean, the
compelling reason?
> I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
Bruce Korb wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macr
I guess it's time for me to chime in.
Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
do, however, still support SunOS4.1 and Ultrix.
And NTP will still use ansi2knr where needed.
I am also workin
Charles Wilson wrote:
> I think the "winning" argument was as follows:
>for archaic systems whose shell does not support shfuncs, 'somebody'
> should create a snapshot of bash with a frozen autotool version
That's the argument that has been put forth over and over for years.
I couldn't re
Eric Siegerman wrote:
> Hmmm, that brings up GCC. I know they have their own reasons for
> sticking with 2.13 (or had, last time I checked), but AC's
> dropping old-box support might be one more, given that GCC is
> seen as (among other things) a way to bootstrap the rest of GNU
> onto weird syst
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:51:01PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [The "regression" test for shell-function support] first appeared in 2.55, in
>mid-November, 2002 (not
> > counting betas). How long would it be appropriate to keep
> > waiting for compla
Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The test suite checks whether they're supported. What has the
> feedback been like so far?
I haven't seen anybody complain.
> That test first appeared in 2.55, in mid-November, 2002 (not
> counting betas). How long would it be appropriate to keep
>
"John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> even Ultrix had another shell, /bin/sh5, if I remember correctly,
> that did support shell functions, and it would not have been too
> difficult for configure to attempt to find it
Recent versions of Autoconf generate "configure" scripts that do just
Chris Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean "gone the way of SunOS 4.x"?
> I set up a DNS and mail server on a Sun SPARC IPX ages ago at a place I
> used to work at. The IPX has all of 32MB RAM and runs SunOS 4.x. On
> such a low powered machine (20Mhz SPARC, I think) SunOS i
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
> >
> > But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
> > people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
> > only use vintage software on it as well?
>
> To install moder
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
> people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
> only use vintage software on it as well?
To install modern software on one of these vintage systems would be
like p
On 19-Feb-2003, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Paul Eggert wrote:
| >
| > Personally I'm becoming more inclined to start using shell functions.
| > Perhaps in Autoconf 3.
|
| If my memory serves, GCC has finally said, "Enough with K&R already!"
| but everyone is still saying, "You first
[removing the automake list from the CC's]
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:16:54AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Personally I'm becoming more inclined to start using shell functions.
> Perhaps in Autoconf 3.
The test suite checks whether they're supported. What has the
feedback been like so far?
That
Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macros, if you don't ca
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
> > autoconf macros still remain,
>
> For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
> you can use shell functions in your own macros,
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
> autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macros, if you don't care
about porting to
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > We did not purposely shut off SunOS 4.x. Instead, we wrote new code,
> > that is portable according to POSIX 1003.2-1992 (a 10-year-old
> > standard), which SunOS 4.x happens to break on, and for which there is
> > no simple workaround.
On a related note, does the restri
Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Support" is a relative term. If you find a new bug in SunOS 4.1.4,
> Sun will not fix it for you, even if you have purchased a standard
> software maintenance contract from Sun. I don't call that "support",
> even if Sun does.
>
> By my definition, Sun doesn't "support" Su
"Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> although you are saying it is still an operating system supported by
> Sun
"Support" is a relative term. If you find a new bug in SunOS 4.1.4,
Sun will not fix it for you, even if you have purchased a standard
software maintenance contract from Su
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > SunOs 4.1.4
>
> Sun has been withdrawing support for that OS. Since September 2000
> Sun has not issued patches for new bugs in that operating system. On
> September 30, Sun will further transition SunOS 4.1.4 to "cust
"Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SunOs 4.1.4
Sun has been withdrawing support for that OS. Since September 2000
Sun has not issued patches for new bugs in that operating system. On
September 30, Sun will further transition SunOS 4.1.4 to "custom
quote" level, which means you wil
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Recently I was looking to put another operating system on a Sun for
> > testing and someone suggested using SunOs 4.1.4, since it is still used
> > a fair amount.
>
> I think you've been somewhat misinformed there. Even in t
David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Recently I was looking to put another operating system on a Sun for
> testing and someone suggested using SunOs 4.1.4, since it is still used
> a fair amount.
I think you've been somewhat misinformed there. Even in the incredibly
Sun-heavy and very slow
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:23:39PM +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Recently I was looking to put another operating system on a Sun for
> testing and someone suggested using SunOs 4.1.4, since it is still
> used a fair amount. My machine now has gcc-2.0, but there is no way I
> could even build g
Bruce Korb wrote:
>
> "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I've found in the past bugs in software are often found on one
> > platform that don't seem to get noticed on another. For this reason I
> > just tried to build gcc-2.0 on an old Sun SPARCstation 20 running
> > SunOs 4.1.4 (ie
"Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I've found in the past bugs in software are often found on one
> platform that don't seem to get noticed on another. For this reason I
> just tried to build gcc-2.0 on an old Sun SPARCstation 20 running
> SunOs 4.1.4 (ie hardware/software about 10 years
Hi,
I've found in the past bugs in software are often found on one
platform that don't seem to get noticed on another. For this reason I
just tried to build gcc-2.0 on an old Sun SPARCstation 20 running
SunOs 4.1.4 (ie hardware/software about 10 years old) to test some
software.
gcc-2.0 n
41 matches
Mail list logo
