Brett Porter wrote: > > I have a couple of questions regarding this (apologies > if already covered - I'm on the digest and only got > this message on announce). > > Let's see if I understand correctly: > 1. you run autoconf > 2. it sets the path based on a wrapper script > 3. next execution goes to the desired one directly.
Yes. > Doesn't this limit you to only running ./configure for > one package within a single bash shell? (or removing > the env. variable/modifying PATH). It sounds like a > good idea for effeciency, but I'm a bit worried about > the confusion factor. No. The new path setting is only good for *called* processes in the same fork/exec chain. The parent shell's PATH is not modified, so once 'autoconf' finishes and you drop back into your interactive shell, your old PATH is back in effect. > Also, I think you stated the default is autoconf-2.52. > This seems to be back to front as many old > configure.in's might not AC_PREREQ(2.13), whereas > newer ones are probably inclined to AC_PREREQ(2.52) > since the uptake is lower. I'm not sure I'm right on > this, really everyone should request what they want > anyway, but its food for thought. Yeah, I understand. Alternatively, you can argue: assume that everyone has up to date tools. Therefore, if you want older versions, you must AC_PREREQ them. (Note that our 'devel' tree is actually the official stable current release, and our 'stable' tree is actually the 'old and out of date' release.) > Good work on this - I think it's a great solution to > the problem for now. A better libtool is worth it. Well, hopefully we'll get there. I've been running into connectivity problems (ATT@home) so that's slowed me down a lot. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
