This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Restructuring the automake and autoconf packages

Brett Porter wrote:
> > No.  The new path setting is only good for *called*
> > processes in the
> > same fork/exec chain.  The parent shell's PATH is
> > not modified, so once
> > 'autoconf' finishes and you drop back into your
> > interactive shell, your
> > old PATH is back in effect.
> >
> Sorry, I must have misunderstood. The message said it
> EXPORTs the var - but I haven't yet looked at the
> scripts themselves (later) - I assumed it exported it
> back to the shell so you could not call the wrapper.

No, in the context of shells, 'export' means that subshells will inherit
the value (it does NOT mean that parent shell will "inherit" anything). 
If you *don't* export, then the subprocesses WON'T see the new value at
all, and the new PATH is only valid within the current script -- but not
within called scripts, and probably not even within exec'ed scripts
because the #!/bin/sh of the exec'ed script will start up a new

> > Yeah, I understand.  Alternatively, you can argue:
> > assume that everyone
> > has up to date tools.  Therefore, if you want older
> > versions, you must
> > AC_PREREQ them.  (Note that our 'devel' tree is
> > actually the official
> > stable current release, and our 'stable' tree is
> > actually the 'old and
> > out of date' release.)
> >
> I thought that was a funny naming when I read it, but
> I can't think of a better one. How about "ancient" and
> "current"? :)
> The reason for my argument is that I thought AC_PREREQ
> was a >= relationship. ie if you PREREQ(2.13), then
> anything higher is OK.

But that's precisely the thing that is NOT true here.  You *can't* use
autoconf-2.50 with a 2.13-based without changes.  So,
AC_PREREQ(X) == 'stable' if X <= 2.13, 'devel' if X > 2.13.  The only
remaining case is X undefined, which I (arbitrarily) mapped to 'devel'.

> I don't know how it is
> implemented (bad me, never used it myself) - but even
> this wouldn't make a lot of sense as 2.52 isn't
> backwards compatible.


> Like I said, food for thought. Probably not worth
> debating though.

BTW, I'm confused.  I never got the original message "Restructioning the
automake and autoconf packages" in my inbox.  I can't find it in the
cygwin, cygwin-announce, or cygwin-developers archives.  Brett, where
did you see the original message to which you initially replied?  Did I
just lose some email cause of the ATT problems?


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]