On 2014-02-27 02:00, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2014-02-27 01:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Peter Rosin writes:
>>> On 2014-02-27 01:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
Wouldn't you name the variable FOO_FEATURE? In other words, I think
the example in the Autoconf manual is not the best, but the
On 2014-02-27 01:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Peter Rosin writes:
>> On 2014-02-27 01:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn't you name the variable FOO_FEATURE? In other words, I think
>>> the example in the Autoconf manual is not the best, but the
>>> functionality you need is there. I would rewri
Peter Rosin writes:
> On 2014-02-27 01:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Wouldn't you name the variable FOO_FEATURE? In other words, I think
>> the example in the Autoconf manual is not the best, but the
>> functionality you need is there. I would rewrite the example as:
>>
>> AC_CACHE_CHECK([for
On 2014-02-27 01:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Peter Rosin writes:
>
>> It's not possible to use AC_PATH_PROGS_FEATURE_CHECK with a cache
>> variable that does not start with ac_cv_path_ which is bad since one
>> project might check for a certain capability of tool foo, while some
>> other project is
Peter Rosin writes:
> It's not possible to use AC_PATH_PROGS_FEATURE_CHECK with a cache
> variable that does not start with ac_cv_path_ which is bad since one
> project might check for a certain capability of tool foo, while some
> other project is interested in some completely orthogonal capabil
Hi!
It's not possible to use AC_PATH_PROGS_FEATURE_CHECK with a cache
variable that does not start with ac_cv_path_ which is bad since
one project might check for a certain capability of tool foo, while
some other project is interested in some completely orthogonal
capability of that same tool foo
