[ODE] 0.6.1

Jason Perkins starkos at gmail.com
Thu Aug 17 05:33:10 MST 2006

On 8/17/06, Bram Stolk <bram at sara.nl> wrote:
> The X11 path issue is more serious. I think that should be
> investigated before doing the next release.
> What kind of noise can get into $x_includes, other than
> XNONE ? We should investigate the origin of the x_includes
> polution, instead of just scrapping the use of AC_PATH_X

FWIW, I agree with this - we should use AC_PATH_X because that is the
"correct" way to set up the environment.

I'm having trouble locating the thread discussing why this was
removed. Can anyone point me to it? I seem to remember it being a
Cygwin/MinGW issue...


More information about the ODE mailing list