[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: macros for rpath support
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: macros for rpath support |
Date: |
Sun, 26 May 2002 23:52:30 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
> Date: 26 May 2002 12:00:27 +0200
>
> For safety, it would be good that we have two different macro names.
I don't see why it's safer to have two different macro names. I've
often redefined Autoconf-supplied macros with no ill effects, and I
presume a similar situation would apply here.
It would be confusing to have two different macro names, and I'd
rather avoid the confusion if possible. So how about if we just
keep using the names that Bruno proposed?
- macros for rpath support, Bruno Haible, 2002/05/21
- Re: macros for rpath support, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, 2002/05/21
- Re: macros for rpath support, Paul Eggert, 2002/05/21
- Message not available
- Re: macros for rpath support, Akim Demaille, 2002/05/26
- Re: macros for rpath support,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: macros for rpath support, Bruno Haible, 2002/05/27
- Re: macros for rpath support, Akim Demaille, 2002/05/27
- Re: macros for rpath support, Bruno Haible, 2002/05/27
- Re: macros for rpath support, Akim Demaille, 2002/05/28
- Re: macros for rpath support, Bruno Haible, 2002/05/28