-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 7/17/2006 11:31 AM:
> Apparently a post-1.4.4b change to M4 changed one of its diagnostics?
Yes, I intentionally changed the diagnostics to be closer to GNU coding
standards. There are still some fixes to be made before it
Quoting Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> >
> > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > one now?
>
> Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chime in on
> whe
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
>
> I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> one now?
Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chime in on
whether the patch was a good idea.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:36:17AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Thanks for reporting that. Does the following patch to Autoconf 2.60
> fix the bug for you? I've installed it into Autoconf CVS (for 2.61)
> but I'd like you to verify that it actually works on NetBSD.
>
> 2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[
Thanks for reporting that. Does the following patch to Autoconf 2.60
fix the bug for you? I've installed it into Autoconf CVS (for 2.61)
but I'd like you to verify that it actually works on NetBSD.
2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (AC_PATH_XTRA): Do th
Apparently a post-1.4.4b change to M4 changed one of its diagnostics?
Anyway, the new diagnostic in M4 1.4.5 breaks Autoconf's "make check".
I assume this change is permanent so I have installed the following
into Autoconf.
2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* NEWS: Recommend M4
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that m4 1.4.5 is released, should we update the web pages to recommend
> it?
OK, thanks, I've done that. I also upgraded the manual and README
as follows.
2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* README: Recommend M4 1.4.5.
* d
