uestion: should we make the commitment that
AC_INIT leaves the parameters untached or not?
(I don't know the answer.)
Have a nice day,
Stepan Kasal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25>
I added an example to this bug.
Actually, I think that Gnome should phase out glib-gettext and use
GNU gettext instead. I filed this suggestion as
<http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=343885>
Have a nice day,
Stepan Kasal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Hello,
patch forgotten, sorry. Attached to this mail.
Stepan
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:06:53PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > +# ... We should not override ac_cv_exeext if it was
> >
Hello,
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > +# ... We should not override ac_cv_exeext if it was
> > > +# cached, so that the user can short-circuit this test for compilers
> > > +# unknown to Autoconf.
... but it would be better if this override were done by ass
Hello,
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:19:14AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I guess you could instead also m4_define TEST_INIT, so that it will not
> take part in the requirement-diversion game. That should preserve the
> order as well.
no, this won't work; AC_REQUIRE has to be called inside an AC
Hello,
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm still wondering whether we should just simply revert both patches,
I have talked with Ralf by phone, and I agree with him that backing
out my cleanup (plus later fixes to it) and replacing it by a couple
of straightforward fixes for
x27;
again for each language.
I prepared the following patch. (Be sure to update your CVS checkout
before applying it.)
Have a nice fortnight,
Stepan
2006-04-01 Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/autoconf/c.m4 (AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX, AC_PROG_OBJC): Call
_A
Hi Norbert,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:20:18PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Don, 16 Mär 2006, Karl Berry wrote:
> > Yes, @ifset/@ifclear (among other things) are impossible to reliably
> > parse in TeX :(. Especially nested.
>
> And why did it work with the old version?
by shere luck, pr
Hello,
> 276006bogus error message when $TEXINPUTS contains nonexistent
> directory
> --
> -abs=`cd "$dir" && pwd` && TEXINPUTS=$TEXINPUTS$path_sep$abs
> +abs=`cd "$dir" 2>/dev/null && pwd` &&
> TEXIN
9 matches
Mail list logo
