On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:30:34PM CET: > > On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n': > > > > > > 1) The solutions documented in the `Multiple Outputs' node are not safe > > > for use with `make -n'. > > > > > > 2) Consequently, the lisp rules are broken, but also the Yacc, Vala, and > > > config.h rules in some cases. > > > > > > 3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and > > > Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstances, too. > > > > I'm not sure how useful it is to fix (3). It is not easy as a user to > > > get GNU make to not update any of the dependencies of the Makefile file, > > > thanks to its remaking feature (info make "Remaking Makefiles"). I'll > > > reply with a patch for the 'Makefile' rule, but in order to expose that > > > bug, you need to use something like this in a subdirectory of a package: > > > make -n Makefile AM_MAKEFLAGS="-n Makefile" > > > > > > I don't think users go to this extent just to have `make -n' work, and > > > they definitely won't get the above right on the first try; but then the > > > rebuild will already have kicked in, making the issue moot for the > > > second try. > > FWIW, I agree that (3) is a minor problem. > > I'm not going to push the patch for (3), I never intended to. Oh, I didn't get that. Sorry. > > > Before applying this (to maint, probably) I would appreciate if someone > > > could look over it to make sure the patch looks sane. Thanks. > > I didn't spot any obvious error in the "meat" of the patch. Just a couple > > of nits w.r.t. the test cases... > > I agree with all of your nits for the first patch, and have pushed it > after fixing them. > > Thanks for the review, > Ralf Thanks for the patch ;-)
Stefano
