there (when
you are accepted by Google/GNU)
Good luck,
Svante Signell
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 21:23 +0300, Fotis Koutoulakis wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> First of all I would like to thank you everyone for your input. I
> really appreciate it.
>
>
> I would also like you to kno
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:31 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:14:31 +0200, Svante Signell
> wrote:
> > Attached are patches to enable gccgo to build properly on Debian
> > GNU/Hurd on gcc-4.7 (4.7.3-4).
>
> Thanks! I
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 16:42 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:39:58 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:36:39 +0200, Svante Signell
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:31 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > >
Hi,
With the recent changes of not using automake for the build, only
auto{re}conf I have problems generating an updated Makefile.in from a
modified Makfile.am. Source is gcc-4.9-4.9-20140322
Some failing attempts:
automake 1.14.1: (same with automake-1.11)
(cd src/libgo; automake -if)
aclocal.m
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 11:24 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the recent changes of gcc not using automake for the build, only
> auto{re}conf I have problems generating an updated Makefile.in from a
> modified Makfile.am. Source is gcc-4.9-4.9-20140322.
>
>
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 16:20 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Svante Signell writes:
>
> > autoconf 2.69:
>
> You must use autoconf 2.65, exactly.
I thought autoconf versions were backwards compatible by now, obviously
not. Is this ever going to happen?
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 16:30 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 16:20 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Svante Signell writes:
> >
> > > autoconf 2.69:
> >
> > You must use autoconf 2.65, exactly.
>
> I thought autoconf versions were ba
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 13:36 +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2014-03-26 18:24 GMT+08:00 Svante Signell :
> > Hi,
> >
> > With the recent changes of not using automake for the build, only
> > auto{re}conf I have problems generating an updated Makefile.in from a
> > modif
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:10 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 March 2014 09:35, Svante Signell wrote:
> > - In an ideal situation no generated files should be shipped with a
> > distribution, i.e. only configure.ac and Makefile.am, no configure,
> > Makefile.in Mak
