-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Jim Meyering on 2/1/2007 9:37 AM: > I spent some time recently tracking down a bug that arose from an autoconf > installation built using m4-1.4.2. My testing showed that autoconf built > using any version of m4 older than 1.4.4 would have the same problem. What bug was it? > > I'm sure it would save others from spending the time to track down this > sort of problem, if there were a configure-time or build-time check for a > working version of m4. However, when I last checked (a week or two ago) > there was none. > > I can't be the first to suggest this. > Is there some reason not to require that we're > using a working version of m4 when building? > I think I can cook up a (mis)feature test. If nothing else, I've already cooked up a (mis)feature test for detecting the tracing bug in 1.4.4 and earlier that affected bootstrapping m4 itself using MacOS's default 1.4.2 vs. automake 1.10: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2006-11/msg00028.html Maybe it is time to bite the bullet and modify that test into autoconf's m4/m4.m4 so that autoconf 2.62 has a hard requirement on m4 1.4.5 or newer? - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake ebb9@xxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFwkdu84KuGfSFAYARAohFAJ9hLGw0IIF8tOmoX261qBHsYmYmkwCdHKvU Ey4KHneCuYaMdmMm8xayynU= =6L1Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
