Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46786 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11827 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2010 21:21:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Jan 2010 21:21:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.220.227 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.227 mail-fx0-f227.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.227] ([209.85.220.227:39548] helo=mail-fx0-f227.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 56/07-22457-AE0D45B4 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:21:47 -0500 Received: by fxm27 with SMTP id 27so2759075fxm.23 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.76.69 with SMTP id b5mr8284130fak.20.1263849703994; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.200.22? (c-98-234-184-167.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.184.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm2580874fxm.5.2010.01.18.13.21.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:21:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B54D0E3.30203@lerdorf.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:21:39 -0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Raphael Geissert CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <1263654424.3127.43.camel@guybrush> <4B522D34.7030605@sci.fi> <4B5420FA.6020301@iki.fi> <4B54D0B6.9040909@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <4B54D0B6.9040909@lerdorf.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Debian PHP patches From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Raphael Geissert wrote: >> Gwynne Raskind wrote: >>> Though I thought the use of high-numbered diversions was >>> actually a supported thing - or was that only in 2.13? >>> >> That argument is not supported by the autoconf manual. Please see the >> discussion at >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542906#10 > > Well, the autoconf maintainers have a different opinion on that. They > don't see anything wrong with doing diverts if there is no other way to > accomplish something. > > You can read this thread about my attempts to create a portable autoconf > setup that works both in autoconf-2.60+ and previous versions. There > were various ideas, but in the end none of them proved to be reliable. > > We need diversions prior to 2.60 or whichever version introduced > AC_PRESERVE_HELP_ORDER. In autoconf versions that have > AC_PRESERVE_HELP_ORDER we can use that and we can drop the diversions > entirely. > > Renumbering the diversions and the various other attempts people have > made doesn't work. Oops, missed the thread link: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2009-11/msg00100.html