Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org
Cc: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>, 372241@bugs.debian.org, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>
Subject: Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:33:08 -0700
Message-id: <[🔎] 87hd2mfkfv.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
Reply-to: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>, 372241@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20060615161251.GB13444@camelia.ucw.cz> (Stepan Kasal's message of "Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:12:51 +0200")
References: <87wtbjg90f.fsf@thosu.err.no> <[🔎] 20060608180930.GE5522@abydos.adm.naquadah.org> <handler.372179.D372241.115029181020466.ackdone@bugs.debian.org> <20060614144156.GI27521@iam.uni-bonn.de> <[🔎] 20060615161251.GB13444@camelia.ucw.cz>

Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:

> I agree that we should document this limitation.  I would document
> that any Autoconf macro can change the positional parameters.

That's what I did in the patch I installed yesterday
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-06/msg00065.html>.

> There is only one question: should we make the commitment that
> AC_INIT leaves the parameters untached or not?

Yes (the patch yesterday says that).

Reply to:

References:
- Bug#372179: apr-util: FTBFS: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/include/apr-1.0': No such file or directory
  - From: Julien Danjou <acid@debian.org>
- Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)
  - From: Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz>

Prev by Date: Bug#344481: Need other to be fixed
Next by Date: Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)
Previous by thread: Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)
Next by thread: Bug#372241: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread