On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/15/2012 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> >> the program is still not correct > > Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Hmmm.... > For most people 'configure' behaves as intended, > but it doesn't match your intent. I'm not sure its my intent. Is the program designed to remove old core files as part of the autoconf process? Perhaps that's where the confusion lies. Perhaps it would be easier (easiest?) to remove that step in the process? That is, no longer make it a specification of the autoconf process. > the discussion we've all had so far suggests that > it's not likely Autoconf will change its behavior > in this area, so I suggest following some of the > advice that I and others already gave to work > around the problem. That's fine - I'm used to it (Closed, Won't Fix). It reminds me of http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/08/one-bug-report-to-rule-them-all.html :) Jeff _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
