[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file)
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file) |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:07:09 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:26:27PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
: > : Are you suggesting that "autoconf" issues a warning as well?
: >
: > Yes, if there's no case where generating a configure-script under such a
: > circumstance is useful...
:
: It has a low priority for me. I'll not object if anybody else does it.
OK, I just wanted to know if there was a reason for the current behaviour
before I considered working on a patch for it. Since noone else has objected,
I just might create one :)
: > Maybe the ac_unique_file test should ensure that ac_unique_file really is a
: > file?
:
: Certainly no. I've seen many cases when a directory (even ".") is used.
Noted.
Lars J
- AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Lars J. Aas, 2000/11/02
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/02
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Lars J. Aas, 2000/11/02
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/02
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file),
Lars J. Aas <=
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Akim Demaille, 2000/11/03
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Lars J. Aas, 2000/11/03
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Akim Demaille, 2000/11/03
- Re: AC_INIT(ac_unique_file), Lars J. Aas, 2000/11/03