[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8) |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:28:33 +0200 |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:53, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:05:40PM CEST:
>> In order to avoid rewriting your makefiles, just do
>>
>> AC_SUBST([ECHO], [echo])
>>
>> for the time being.
>
> I don't think that works currently. Libtool sets $ECHO early in
> configure and uses that when writing config.status. When users
> overwrite that, it may break the generated libtool script on some
> systems.
Ouch, right. Two-argument AC_SUBST implies VAR=value, I forgot.
> Add to that that Libtool used to AC_SUBST([ECHO]).
But it doesn't anymore.
> Whatever we do, NEWS needs a big warning note.
Why? It's just namespace pollution, which has always been there.
Paolo
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Peter O'Gorman, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8),
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/08/17