- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by weigelt＠metux.de

* Jeremy Henty <onepoint(a)starurchin.org> schrieb: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:28:55AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Now that I run it instead of just reading the documentation > > (reminds me of that one Knuth line), I get some > > > > configure.in:9: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET > > ./../lib/autoconf/general.m4:1843: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is expanded from... > > configure.in:9: the top level > > Yes, my fault, AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM needs to be called immediately > after AC_INIT . Just about to submit a fix! BTW: if you someday encounter issues with certain previously set variables ending up empty, it also might have to do with that ordering. (IIRC AC_INIT() seems to clear variables). Autoconf is hell ;-o cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt(a)metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 2, 2011

[patch]: more configure.in cleanups

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

corvid wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > > Some more cleaning up of configure.in: > > It all seems reasonable to me -- and works when I run it :) > > > Looking through configure.in, I remember that Joerg wanted us to > update the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF stuff at one point... TO_DO++ :-) . Any idea what he thought needed doing? Regards, Jeremy Henty

Jan. 2, 2011

Happy new year!

by cs_bittin＠msn.com

Happy new year and continue doing the greatest browser for older computers :) > Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 12:39:25 -0300 > From: jcid(a)dillo.org > To: dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > Subject: [Dillo-dev] Happy new year! > > Hi there, > > Please receive my best wishes and thanks to the team. > > Let's hope this year will help our project thrive again, in > both the distros and the collaboration agreement we're trying to > make. > > (-: 2011 :-) > > -- > Cheers > Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

Jan. 2, 2011

Happy new year!

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi there, Please receive my best wishes and thanks to the team. Let's hope this year will help our project thrive again, in both the distros and the collaboration agreement we're trying to make. (-: 2011 :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Jan. 2, 2011

[patch]: more configure.in cleanups

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jeremy wrote: > Some more cleaning up of configure.in: It all seems reasonable to me -- and works when I run it :) Looking through configure.in, I remember that Joerg wanted us to update the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF stuff at one point...

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: more configure.in cleanups

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

Some more cleaning up of configure.in: Move AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM We should call AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM immediately after AC_INIT otherwise autoconf throws a warning "AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET". (This was introduced by my previous configure.in patch, oops!) Remove AM_PROG_CC_STDC AM_PROG_CC_STDC has been folded into AC_PROG_CC . Amusing facts: * This removes 670 lines (~ 9%) from configure! * AM_PROG_CC_STDC is so obsolete it's not even mentioned in the current docs! I Googled an old version[1] to confirm that it's been obsolete since automake 1.8 (released 2003-12-10). After removing this macro, AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is the only AM_* macro that Dillo uses. Remove AC_HEADER_STDC This isn't actually marked as obsolete but the manual[2] states: This macro is obsolescent, as current systems have conforming header files. New programs need not use this macro. The Dillo source does not use the variable STDC_HEADERS that AC_HEADER_STDC defines. Please comment. Regards, Jeremy Henty [1] http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/automake/automake_24.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Particular-Headers.ht…

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:28:55AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Now that I run it instead of just reading the documentation > (reminds me of that one Knuth line), I get some > > configure.in:9: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET > ./../lib/autoconf/general.m4:1843: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is expanded from... > configure.in:9: the top level Yes, my fault, AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM needs to be called immediately after AC_INIT . Just about to submit a fix! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

BTW, I see that configure.ac is preferred to configure.in nowadays. http://www.mail-archive.com/autoconf@gnu.org/msg19641.html says: "...the naming change to configure.ac was YEARS ago, for autoconf 2.50. And now that autoconf 2.59 is about as old as you can reliably go (for example, RHEL 5 still uses autoconf 2.59), it is completely safe to use the (not so) new naming convention." It seems that 2.50 came out in 2001.

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Now that I run it instead of just reading the documentation (reminds me of that one Knuth line), I get some configure.in:9: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET ./../lib/autoconf/general.m4:1843: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is expanded from... configure.in:9: the top level

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:58:25PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > > > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > > > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > > > to date. > > > > > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? > > > > From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. > > +1 > > Ditto. Done! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Jan. 1, 2011