On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> > One of the design goals of Autoconf was to avoid the fallacy of older
> > tools that had complex product databases that had to be maintained by
> > hand. Instead, most Autoconf tests try to check for features. The
> > exception are cases when such
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Isn't the second check a matter of running a small test program, as in
> >> the check that Daniel provided (but more sophisticated)?
> >
> > sure. but what was the problem with stack detection? it's simp
Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Isn't the second check a matter of running a small test program, as in
>> the check that Daniel provided (but more sophisticated)?
>
> sure. but what was the problem with stack detection? it's simply a couple
> of AC_EGREP_CPP macros after all...
The
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> >
> >> Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion?
> >> >
> >> > this could be another
Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
>> Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion?
>> >
>> > this could be another solution. but i think it would be much better
>> > to do it
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Shouldn't we simply check for libinet6 in the usual fashion?
> >
> > this could be another solution. but i think it would be much better
> > to do it only for kame and usagi stack.
>
> Hmm. Checking for
