tech-toolchain archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Portable type definitions for tools

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:28:31PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
  | On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24:42PM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
  | > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:08:00PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
  | >   | I'm wondering whether we shouldn't just include the macros and ignore
  | >   | 2.60+ for now.
  | > 
  | > Include which macros, where?
  | Copy AC_TYPE_* to acsite.m4 to include them with our version.

I'm not convinced this particular effort is worth doing.

We would have to be very careful in the porting effort to ensure that
the AC_TYPE_* macros we obtain from autoconf 2.60 don't depend upon
other changes made since 2.52.
Then we'd also have the future maintenance issues.

What particular portability problems are you trying to fix
with these proposals?

If there's a valid enough reason to upgrade, I'm all for
working (with you) to update tools/compat to a more recent
autoconf and more up-to-date tests.
If it's mostly an aesthetic goal, then it can wait until
after 5.0.


Attachment: pgpmWuZvXiAUK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index