* Jeff Squyres wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:39:01PM CEST:
> 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!
[ off-list ]
> Any idea when the next Autoconf will be released?
They won't tell you. I can ask, but since there are fairly large
changes, I'd bet it'll take quite a while. Maybe one should ask them
about the possibility of point releases..
> > +: ${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?
This is quite portable. Assignments are nicely explained in
info Autoconf Assignments
if you care.
> 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.
Hey, much of Libtool is an exercise in portable shell programming.
Cheers,
Ralf
|
