> I would suggest spliting it up, one kb patch, and one that > touches autoconf stuff.
Why? Those other changes are quite small. And I just don't see the point of splitting it up... Because it is normal, usually apperciated and that they are three completely different patches? > +This version has support for autoconf 2.57, gcc 3.4 and binutils > +2.14.x. > > 3.4 is not released. Ok, you fixed it to work with a gcc version because it was broken. Was that gcc 3.3? And it was possible that you fixed it to work with the CVS version of gcc. The subject line of my message: "GNU Mach 1.3 and gcc 3.3.x". I can't say that it will work with the current CVS version of gcc, gcc can't even compile libc last time I checked, so I'm totally uninterested in if you can compile GNU Mach with a broken GCC; that is not even released. > diff -upNr ../gnumach.orig/configure.in ./configure.in > --- ../gnumach.orig/configure.in 2004-01-19 19:30:37.000000000 +0100 > +++ ./configure.in 2004-01-19 18:41:30.000000000 +0100 > > Maybe a rename is in order, newer autoconf's prefer to have > configure.ac. I agree. The same must be done for oskit-mach and the Hurd (and perhaps mig too). Only if those work with > 2.5x. Could you also fix the mig check so that configure will barf it it cannot find it? Right now I think it sets a default, and assumes that it exists, even if it doesn't. Oh, and while you are at it, add a check for uuencode; been biten by that several times for some odd reason. Cheers. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
