Hello Ralf.
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET:
> > > Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ...
> >
> > > > - $output_rules .= "\$(srcdir)/$headerfile:
> > > > \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n".
> > > > - "\...@if test -f \$@; then :; else \\\n".
> > > > - "\t rm -f \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp; \\\n".
> > > > - "\t \$(am__cd) \$(srcdir) && \$(MAKE) \$(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
> > > > ${derived}_vala.stamp; \\\n".
> > > > - "\tfi\n";
> > > > + $output_rules .= "\$(srcdir)/$headerfile:
> > > > \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n"
> > > > + . "\...@if test -f \$@; then :; else rm -f
> > > > \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp; \n"
> > > ... here (missing "fi"). It causes a failure in `vala2.test'.
> > >
> > > I'll install a fix later if you don't beat me (right now I'm doing other
> > > testing, and prefer not to be sidetracked by this issue).
> >
> > That's what I get for forgetting one testsuite addition. Thanks for
> > tracking this down, and please push the fix, ideally together with a
> > new test
> Is a new test really needed? After all, I noticed the bug because it
> broke the pre-existing `vala2.test'...
I've gone ahead and comitted the fix without adding a new testcase.
Please let me know if you still think a testcase addition would be
valuable, in which case I'll add it in a follow-up patch.
Regards,
Stefano
