On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:18 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Could we apply a patch to the resulting 2.59-generated configure
>> script
>> for this problem?
>
> Surely (well, as good as shipping patches against configure scrips work
> anyway). The Autoconf patch has been accepted. If you would like me
> to
> prepare one, I can do that for the SVN version of all of the lam/
> lamtests configure scripts.
That would be great; thanks!
Any idea when the next Autoconf will be released?
> Meanwhile, would you mind putting this trivial patch in? It helps
> select different choices of autotools without changing your code.
> +: ${ACLOCAL=aclocal}
> +: ${AUTOCONF=autoconf}
> +: ${AUTOMAKE=automake}
> +: ${LIBTOOL=libtool}
> +: ${LIBTOOLIZE=libtoolize}
> +: ${AUTOHEADER=autoheader}
I'm not familiar with this notation -- is it universally sh-friendly,
or is it a bash-ism?
I have no objections to the principle of this patch (I can even apply
an analogous patch to Open MPI); I just want to make sure we don't have
bash-isms in there.
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} jsquyres_at_[hidden]
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
|
