From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7955: patch for imagemagick header rename Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:51:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mxm0x4h8.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297739210 23040 80.91.229.12 (15 Feb 2011 03:06:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7955@debbugs.gnu.org, Chong Yidong To: joakim@verona.se Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 15 04:06:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpBFR-0007XV-Ku for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:06:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55693 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpBFQ-0001MQ-LA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:06:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56360 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpBFJ-0001MF-J1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:06:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpBFE-0002z9-5B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:06:30 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60516) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpBFE-0002z0-2F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:06:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpAsX-0003jN-Rs; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:43:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <2evd137anm.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7955 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7955-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7955.129773777014315 (code B ref 7955); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:43:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7955) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2011 02:42:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpAsL-0003iq-O7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpAsJ-0003iW-Dl for 7955@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:42:47 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40976) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpB0z-0003yY-KF; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:51:45 -0500 X-Spook: SAFE Bruxelles Craig Livingstone RSA AK-47 BLU-97 A/B X-Ran: #>mz3bk0,1K:8A{8Ta{kEn7m[4)*SNkN=bmH|D7W3y8[M;oYyFk{&|T0@#-EgsJek.yAJ= X-Hue: black X-Attribution: GM User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:43:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44139 Archived-At: joakim@verona.se wrote: > I thought it was suitable to work on a branch since I find the autoconf > machinery to be brittle and I'm not even able to test the patch properly > atm. The branch has been updated from trunk so I thought it was ok. > > Why is it a concern? I'm not concerned, just seems like it makes more work to continue using a branch after the feature in question has been merged to the trunk. There are several uses of a ">=" test with PKG_CHECK_MODULES in configure already, so I think you can feel pretty confident about adding another.