Are you saying that 'configure.ac' could be removed from the
distribution with no ill effects and that 'configure' has to be edited
by hand? (Someone generated some version of 'configure' using autoconf
2.61, according to the comments in 'configure'.)
All I really want to do it submit a simple patch, to either
'configure' if that's the right thing to do, or to 'configure.ac' if
that's the right thing to do. Which is it?
--- Vladimir
on 09/17/2008 06:21 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
> I've made some (minor) changes to 'configure.ac'. What is the proper
> way of recreating 'configure'?
`autoconf'
> Running
>
> $ autoreconf --force --no-recursive
>
> fails with warnings about missing templates
>
> autoheader-2.62: warning: missing template: ARCHLIBDIR_USER_DEFINED
We don't use automake, autoheader, etc etc. Even the most recent
autoconfs don't support half of the tests we use, making a port to
those tools an exercise in frustration. AFAIK autoreconf expects a
conformant automake project; we aren't, and I doubt we ever will
(converting to decent tool, Scons has been mentioned, would be a much
better use of the effort I bet).
We do have some aclocal stuff in the modules, at least, and maybe in
the top level too. But that's the extent of it.
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta