From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26896 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2002 14:15:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26883 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2002 14:15:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2002 14:15:07 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E373CC5; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2AEFE7.2090605@ges.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Which autoheader? References: <3D2A658A.1060100@ges.redhat.com> <87ptxxfpsh.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 > "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney writes: > > > Andrew> Which version of autoheader did you use when re-generating > Andrew> config.in? I'm finding that, using 000227, I can't reproduce > Andrew> config.in. > > fleche. autoheader --version > Autoconf version 2.13 > > This is the autoconf in Red Hat Linux 7.3. > One hopes it hasn't been modified from the net release very heavily. > What is 000227? Both GDB and BINUTILS are regenerated using auto ``000227'' which can be found in: ftp://sources.redhat.com/~ftp/pub/binutils/ there are also automake, gettext and libtool. How applicable the latter ones are to GDB I don't know. (this confusion is normal :-) > I've never heard of an autoconf release named that way. > > What does your autoheader generate for config.in? Re-generating both configure.in and configure had the attached effect. > Looking more closely, I see I checked in a config.in that includes > PACKAGE -- but the configure.in patch hasn't yet been accepted for > gdb. This definition is bogus but harmless. Is that what you're > seeing? If so I can revert that patch easily. No the et.al. checks. I'll re-generate both and check the result in. enjoy, Andrew