[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #49 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com>  2009-04-12 15:45:02 EDT ---
one more non-review note for Mikuláš:

+ autoreconf -i
autoheader: WARNING: Using auxiliary files such as `acconfig.h', `config.h.bot'
autoheader: WARNING: and `config.h.top', to define templates for `config.h.in'
autoheader: WARNING: is deprecated and discouraged.
autoheader: 
autoheader: WARNING: Using the third argument of `AC_DEFINE' and
autoheader: WARNING: `AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED' allows one to define a template
without
autoheader: WARNING: `acconfig.h':
autoheader: 
autoheader: WARNING:   AC_DEFINE([NEED_FUNC_MAIN], 1,
autoheader:   [Define if a function `main' is needed.])
autoheader: 
autoheader: WARNING: More sophisticated templates can also be produced, see the
autoheader: WARNING: documentation.

> Just keep in mind that the configure script must be generated with autoconf
> 2.13 --- that was current version 10 years ago when Links project was started
> and support for all the operating systems is tested with it.

I really don't want to do much about this (I am not programmer myself and I
don't claim to have any more knowledge about autofoo than sitting in our office
to one its maintainers), but just I am confused:

a) shouldn't be autofoo run only on the machine of the guy who creates the
release tarball? So support on other operating systems shouldn't be that
crucial, right? (I don't know why we do autoreconf here, and I don't care)
b) 2.13 is REALLY old. Which platform does really need it these days, which
wouldn't have the later one?

Just questions, nothing to do with the package review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.