Re: [Fwd: autoconf issue]

[David Sugar]

There is a "ost_check" macro distributed with GNU Common C++ (ost_check2
with GNU Common C++ "2").  This is installed into share/aclocal and has
macros that setup compiler options and test for the ccgnu-config 
(ccfgnu2-config)
config script from a Common C++ install.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, David Durham wrote:

> Hey... I was wondering if you could comment on this message I'm
> forwarding to you... It's actually a thread I started in the
> address@hidden mailing list... So you could reply to it there...
>
> Thanks,
> Davy
>
> BTW- I would like to add: Is there any prescribed way to detect
> commonc++ with existing autoconf macros.... the problems arise such as:
> 'would my test which configure compiles need to have ost:: on the object
> it attempts to create' and 'just what class would be best to test
> for'... Etc...
>
> The FOX toolkit library (which I am also using) has a c function not in
> and namespace just for this reason to test for with existing autoconf
> macros.. They also say to test for the main header fox.h with also with
> an existing autoconf macro.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: autoconf issue
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:03:44 -0600
> From: David Durham <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
>
>
>
> Hey, I realized something while having my package autoconfiscated.
>  CommonC++ has two macros called, VERSION and PACKAGE created which are
> the default names used by autotools, but any other package also using
> autotools will create these by default.  Now, it is our reponsibility to
> change ours from VERSION and PACKAGE to SOMETHING_VERSION and
> SOMETHING_PACKAGE, shouldn't CommonC++ do it also?
>
> Am I confused about this?  I do know that right now our VERSION and
> PACKAGE could be getting confused when include CommonC++ header files.
>
> -- Davy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>
>
>