Re: dlfcn.h

[Noah Misch]

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:44:37PM +0100, James Youngman wrote:
> On 5/19/07, Eric Blom <address@hidden> wrote:
> >configure: WARNING: dlfcn.h: accepted by the compiler, rejected by the 
> >preprocessor!
> >configure: WARNING: dlfcn.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result
> >configure: WARNING:     ## ------------------------------------ ##
> >configure: WARNING:     ## Report this to address@hidden ##
> >configure: WARNING:     ## ------------------------------------ ##
> 
> 
> There are two bugs here.   The first is, as I understand things, that
> the author of the package which you are trying to configure has failed
> to set up something that would normally make "Report this to
> address@hidden" actually say "Report this to
> some-more-useful-mailing-list."    I suspect that the fact that
> autoconf allows package maintainers to fail to set the variable is, in
> fact, essentially a bug in autoconf.

Autoconf 2.57 generates configure scripts that always ask for a report to
address@hidden  Autoconf 2.59 and later ask for a report to the package
bug report address, if specified, or else to "the GNU foo lists" (for example).
It will take time for installations of Autoconf 2.57 die out, and even longer to
obsolete all package releases bootstrapped with Autoconf 2.57.  These reports
will trickle in for years to come.