On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: > I suggested a simple, low impact way of updating the files, > particularly for people wanting to build a large number of packages > (eg, for a distro). Can anyone tell me why this approach is not > satisfactory? It's what I've done for years. Does it get rid of the problem? I don't think so but for legacy code that is no longer being maintained, either you maintain it, or the problem exists into infinity with a hard stop when someone does maintain it. I think the battle is trying to overcome continuing the legacy method of needing to replace config.guess/config.sub within a package and allow a common (or configurable) location be used as new development takes place. Your symlink/copy method doesn't overcome that legacy method so it would not be a satisfactory solution since that solution continues the legacy method. However, your solution does help those with packages that currently use that legacy method. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
