Re: Jade 1.2 available

[apharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Adam P. Harris)]

Louis-Dominique Dubeau <ldd@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> apharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> 
> > Well, first off, Cees de Goot, not James Clark, is responsible for the
> > autoconf/libtool system.  So pester Cees, not James.
> 
> ???  The message was sent to the list, not to James personally.  I
> would also point out that the missing executable flags on the
> configure scripts are a packaging problem.  Unless I am seriously
> mistaken about how jade is packaged and released, James does have a
> part into this.

Yes; all correct.  Just a little reminder.

> > Secondly, you need Cees autoconf patch 1, at least.  Cees was
> > maintaining fixes for that system at
> > <URL:http://www.sgmltools.org/jade.html>, which is dead right now.
> > However, I do have patch 1, which I've temporarily put up at
> > <URL:http://master.debian.org/~aph/jade-1.2-patch1.diff.gz>.  Note
> > that the patch won't apply right on some of the RCS variables; just
> > ignore that (it's Cees', not mine!)
> 
> This is not at all obvious.

No, it's not, which is why I bothered to post about it.

> Moreover, I fail to see why I should have
> to patch *autoconf*. 

I don't understand.  The patch patches 

  Makefile.comm.in, Makefile.in, configure, configure.in, and config.h

I assume you are talking about the patch to configure.in?

> At the time I try to build the package, the
> configure script and associated files are already generated so that I
> don't need to run autoconf (and I shouldn't have to).

Nor do you.

Cees included, quite nicely, both the configure.in patches, and the
resulting 'configure' derived from that.  I like that he shipped both
in the patch.  That way, you can re-run 'autoconf' if you want to.
Why is this something to complain about?

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist