This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
What is the blessed version of autoconf/automake?
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: Michael Meissner <bin-mail at the-meissners dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: What is the blessed version of autoconf/automake?
- References: <20030529170544.GA1368@tiktok.the-meissners.org>
Michael Meissner writes:
> What is the prefered version of automake, autoconf, gettext, and libtool for
> the binary utilities these days? In README-maintainer-mode it mentions that I
> should use the special version of the tools in sourceware.cygnus.com (which I
> probably should submit a patch because cygnus.com doesn't exist anymore). With
> this version of the tools, I get:
>
> configure.in:8: AC_TRY_COMPILE was called before AC_ISC_POSIX
> configure.in:8: AC_TRY_RUN was called before AC_ISC_POSIX
> autoconf: Undefined macros:
> ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_MSG
> ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
> ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_MSG
> [...]
How come bfd/aclocal.m4 has this:
---
dnl aclocal.m4 generated automatically by aclocal 1.4-p5
dnl Copyright (C) 1994, 1995-8, 1999, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
---
whereas if I download
ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/binutils/automake-000227.tar.bz2
I get an aclocal that has:
---
dnl aclocal.m4 generated automatically by aclocal 1.4
dnl Copyright (C) 1994, 1995-8, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
---
If I generate aclocal.m4 with the aclocal from automake-000227.tar.bz2
and then use the autoconf from autoconf-000227.tar.bz2 I get the
above errors.
However, if I throw that aclocal.m4 out and get a fresh copy,
autoconf runs just fine and creates a configure script with
no differences from the checked-in copy (yay!).
Will the real aclocal please stand up.