Re: [avr-libc-dev] bug #12033 (macros.inc)

[John Altstadt]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As John Altstadt wrote:
> 
> 
>>I raised bug #13416 about the autoconf problem against
>>avr-libc-1.2.3.
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I have to close that bug some day unresolved.

I have updated the bug with some additional findings. The summary is
that the problem was caused by running reconf in a bad environment,
something that is not required unless you are building from CVS.

Feel free to close the bug. It is mostly a non-event. Hopefully it will
save some time for any other Gentoo users who try to use the
Moffitt/Erasmus shell scripts.

> First, we could not fix a released version of the source code anyway.

Huh? I'm not sure what this is saying. My experience is that bugs are
reported against the version of software where they are found. I would
expect that any bug fix would go into a new release version, and not
just be slipstreamed into the shipping version. Is this not the case
with avr-libc?

> Second, avr-libc's configuration currently only has a `supported'
> status for the exact versions as they are listed in the files, newer
> versions are explicitly unsupported.

Sorry, I couldn't find the versions documented anywhere other than the
error statements coming from running reconf and autoconf "FATAL ERROR:
Autoconf version 2.50 or higher is required for this script". As I now
know, reconf is a bad thing to be running on Gentoo, or possibly any
system that supports multiple versions of autoconf.

>>It looks like different versions of autoconf were used to create
>>various files, ...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I've symlinked the exact versions that are required to their
> generic names in my $PATH, and then ran ./reconf.  There's not much
> chance the tools would have picked different versions.

At the time I was thinking that some of the generated files hadn't been
regenerated in a while. I didn't realize that this was the whole purpose
behind reconf.

Thanks,
John