This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch 0/27] RFC: Use automake-1.11.6 across the tree
- From: Michael Haubenwallner <michael dot haubenwallner at ssi-schaefer dot com>
- To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- Cc: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>, Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:00:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch 0/27] RFC: Use automake-1.11.6 across the tree
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5548E9C3 dot 1090408 at ssi-schaefer dot com>
Am 2015-05-05 um 18:03 schrieb Michael Haubenwallner:
>
> Now that gcc-5 is out, what about an automake-1.11.6 update for gcc-6?
>
When installing automake-1.11.6 into some dedicated location,
there's one regression compared to 1.11.1:
$ ./configure --prefix=/prefix/of/automake-1.11.6 && make install
$ /prefix/of/automake-1.11.6/bin/aclocal
aclocal: couldn't open directory '/prefix/of/automake-1.11.6/share/aclocal': No such file or directory
It turns out this is "the directory of third-party system-wide m4 files",
which is assumed that it "always exists" since this commit:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/commit/?id=30f99cbd07736c96603d15346fc8ad9097a0dddd
The workaround is to simply create this directory:
$ mkdir /prefix/of/automake-1.11.6/share/aclocal
While I think this really is a regression within the automake-1.11 branch,
I'll take it as acceptable behaviour change since automake-1.12.
But as the workaround is simple, I'm unsure whether to
report it as automake-1.11 bug and request an 1.11.7 release (unlikely),
or fully document the workaround in install.texi,
or have install.texi point to this very mail,
or let web search engines spot this very mail.
Thoughts?
/haubi/