Are DJGPP patches for autoconf welcome?

[Tim Van Holder]

Hi,

123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
I've been using a DJGPP-patched autoconf 2.49a for some time now, and it
seems to be working fine (and configure scripts produced by it also work
fine on Linux, so I don't think I've broken anything (yet)).
I'm in the process of updating my patched files to 2.49b. What I would
like to know is whether patches for DJGPP support would be welcomed. If
they are, I will make every effort to make sure I don't break anything.
If, however, they would have little or no chance to be included in an
official release, I can simply concentrate on getting things to work
right under DJGPP.

So far, there are only two relatively major changes:
- a new macro: AC_PATHSEP
  This substitutes @PATH_SEPARATOR@ witht the path separator used on
  the build system (as found in $ac_pathsep; see below)
  This is mainly for use in makefiles and shell scripts (in fact, my
  patched automake 1.4a relies on it to get its TeX-related rules right).
- AC_PATH_PROG(s) don't return a full path if configure run under DJGPP.
  This is because we want the produced files to be portable across DOS
  based systems, and to keep DOS paths out of autoconf variables as much
  as possible (as the colon used in a drivespec often causes trouble for
  autoconf, which uses the colon for its own purposes).

I've also added a _AC_DJGPP macro to the _AC_EXEEXT mechanism, but this
should be transparent to the user. A number of new variables were also
introduced (ac_pathsep, ac_test_f), but they're set to the defaults for
Unix (':' and '-f', respectively), relying on a site file to override
them on DJGPP.

Tim Van Holder