Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:21:45 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT usa DOT net>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: autoconf 2.13 test version available
In-Reply-To:	<B0000065037@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990120131354.18751B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:

>        - more serious thing is that config.h.in  and similar files (many packages 
>          contains them).

I have succeeded to convince quite a few package maintainers to switch 
from config.h.in to config.in or some such.  Examples include TeX and 
related programs, Texinfo, Sed, and the next release of Grep.  So 
apparently this is not such a big problem.

Even if config.h.in is in the package, it is very simple to add a few Sed 
commands that will cause the configure script to convert it to 
config.h-in (which is how DJTAR unpacks config.h.in on DOS) when it edits
Makefile.in into Makefile.

> This is source of some more failures in tests. I think that
>          trying to change something related in automake built for DJGPP without 
>          updating similary other packages will only break things

I don't see how it could break anything.  AFAIK, forcing Automake and 
Autoconf to use a specific name for the config.h.in file is very easy, 
I saw how it is done in those packages that do it already.  All it 
requires is a small additional effort.  If GNU maintainers, who
generally don't care much about DOS/Windows, can do this, how come we 
can't?

- Raw text -