Re: [Quilt-dev] configure.in

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Saturday 01 February 2003 03:06, James Rowe wrote:
> Hey
>
>   Okay, this time there will be #*!? ups.
>
>   Again, I am going to say there is probably a patch due for
> backup-files.  But I need to test a few things when I can get access
> to some other boxes.

backup-files is still lacking tests for the results of autoconf. Also 
there should probably be a config.h[.in]. That's probably not a 
priority right now, though. Support for copying files when hard links 
don't work would be more important.

>   You may also notice that a new target dist-snapshot has been added,
> so that stack of tarballs from dev versions should be a little easier
> to manage(atleast for me).

I don't know what it's really worth, but I've merged it in. I have moved 
ISODATE from configure.in to the makefile, though: You really want a 
snapshot of the day you run `make snapshot', not of the day you ran 
configure...

>   Also dist now uses tar's '-h' flag, incase anyone else is like me
> and tends to build from a lndir'd root.

Again I don't see how this could be useful in this case. Since it 
doesn't hurt either I've added it.

>   I've enforced it to rely on autoconf 2.57 for no good reason other
> than it is the only version I've tested at all with so far.

Decreased to 2.53.

I've also removed other stuff that wasn't too helpful, like an Automake 
leftover in configure.in, and the cross compilation check. That's 
really not going to be needed :)


In your next message you wrote:

>   If you are wondering why I haven't being commiting direct to CVS it
> is because there have been way to many differences on my part already
> and I think it would be foolish and wrong for me to be commiting
> *any* non-bugfix changes until [hopefully] I am agreement with the
> viewers of others.

I'm glad you ran this through quilt-dev. The configure.in script was 
obviously untested and buggy. (I may have left a few bugs while going 
over it, too.)