[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL
From: |
Stefan Bienert |
Subject: |
Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL |
Date: |
Wed, 13 May 2009 22:52:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090510) |
Hi again,
> OK, but still the last line had no logical connection with the other
> ones, so I wondered whether we were missing something.
Oh, well, AC_SUBST should only be called, if the issue checked by
AC_CACHE_CHECK is true. I probably forgot to mention this either. Sorry.
> Old habit. Use AS_CASE, please. It makes a difference only if its
> arguments expand AC_REQUIRE statements.
As I thought. I always use AS_CASE/ AS_IF, makes live a little bit more
lazy...where is AS_FOR ;-)?
>> Isn't SB_FOOS empty if not initialised?
> Sure, but do you want it to be seedable or not?
What does "seedable" mean?
greetings,
Stefan
- AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Stefan Bienert, 2009/05/12
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/13
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Stefan Bienert, 2009/05/13
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/13
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL,
Stefan Bienert <=
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/13
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Stefan Bienert, 2009/05/13
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/14
- Message not available
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/15
- Re: AC_SUBST and AC_CACHE_VAL, Eric Blake, 2009/05/13