Re: autoconf: dead-lock? at how many locations???

[Eric Blake]

On 04/14/2010 07:34 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>  Hello, autoconf-group!
> 
> I did try to make an autoconf-installation from source.
> I did fail because of I need autoconf to make autoconf.

This is not a bug.  The proper means for bootstrapping the development
version of autoconf is indeed to install a tarball of autoconf.  The
tarball does NOT depend on pre-installed autoconf; only the development
tree.

> I did experience a lot of irregular thinkgs in internet.
> May be my version was anyway "customized" and
> the mentioned close-looped depency of autoconf
> concerns just my personal version I have.  I did get 
> it via:
> 
> #> git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/autoconf

Yes, that is the correct way to get the development tree.  But unless
you plan on developing autoconf and submitting patches, it is probably
overkill, and you can instead just download a recent tarball from
http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/autoconf/ and be done with it.  2.65 is the
latest release.

> 
> I would really like to hear any reflection to this obscure matter 
> though can understand that this matter is that "funny"

It is neither obscure (we have documented it in README-hacking, as you
yourself quoted) nor funny (it was an intentional decision to make
development of autoconf require the prior installation of a release
tarball).  In fact, it serves as a great litmus test for weeding out
people who are less-than-serious about actually contributing to the
project - by demonstrating that you are technically savvy enough to
follow the directions and bootstrap a development tree, you have already
given yourself a leg up when it comes to having others accept patches
from you.

By the way, your email was littered with lots of html junk.  On
technical lists, the preferred medium is plain text.

-- 
Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature