This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: What is the blessed version of autoconf/automake?
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:25:56PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:05:44PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > 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:
> >
> > Where exactly did you get them, and are you sure you're using that
> > copy? They work for me.
> >
> > >
> > > 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
>
> I got them from ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/binutils:
>
> autoconf-000227.tar.bz2
> automake-000227.tar.bz2
> gettext-000227.tar.bz2
> libtool-000227.tar.bz2
>
> (substituting sources.redhat.com for the obsolete sourceware.cygnus.com), using
> the current checked out sources from yesterday. Since I am adding a new
> machine, I needed to rebuild the appropriate files. I built them from scratch,
> installed them in a directory, and put that earlier on my $PATH before the
> standard tools in /usr/bin. The commands I issued were:
>
> --> aclocal
> --> autoconf
> --> automake
Well, in that case I'm stumped. It works for me.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer