Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:53:22PM CEST: > > On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > With nits below addressed, the patch is OK for master, but > > > please commit to a new branch off of maint > >

Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:53:22PM CEST: > On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > With nits below addressed, the patch is OK for master, but please > > commit to a new branch off of maint > That's what I tried at first, but unfortunately the maint branc

Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, Hi Ralf. Thanks for persisting on this. > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:24:46AM CEST: > > Your objections, reasonings and suggestsions have been quite > > enlighting, and brought me to the understandanding

Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:24:46AM CEST: > Your objections, reasonings and suggestsions have been quite enlighting, > and brought me to the understandanding that most of our problems were > deriving by the juggling of "weird strings" ;-> between gen-instspc-te

Re: [SIMPLE PATCHES] {maint} Minor improvements to maintainer checks

On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:14:46PM CEST: > > OK for maint? > > The first one is ok with nit below addressed. > > The second one seems too ad-hoc and maintenance-intensive > (we should strive for code that needs as l

Re: [SIMPLE PATCH] {maint} Fixlets for HACKING.

On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:52:04PM CEST: > > OK for maint? > > OK. > > Thanks, > Ralf > > > * HACKING (Administrivia): Fixed typo `NES' for `NEWS'. > > (Naming): Do not refer to a convention dating back to Feb 20

Re: [SIMPLE PATCHES] {maint} Minor improvements to maintainer checks

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:14:46PM CEST: > OK for maint? The first one is ok with nit below addressed. The second one seems too ad-hoc and maintenance-intensive (we should strive for code that needs as little maintenance as possible), I'd rather beat your patches in shap

Re: [SIMPLE PATCH] {maint} Test automake-generated portions of configure help screen.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:05:37PM CEST: > As a follow-up to the patch suggested by Jeff A. Daily: > > I'd like to use AS_HELP_STRING more consistently in the > Automake-provided macros. To do that confid

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:16:53AM CEST: > BTW, I see that the comments to the AC_TRY_EVAL definition in autoconf > boldly warn againt its use: > > # The AC_TRY_EVAL and AC_TRY_COMMAND macros are dangerous and > # undocumented, and should not be used. > # They may b

branches, and, well, more branches (was: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.)

* Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:18:53AM CEST: > Den 2010-09-15 23:56 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > > Peter, you shouldn't have to worry about any merging issues. That's > > what working on a branch is for, and that's what the msvc branch is for. > > > > Irrespective of which branch gets

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:00:54PM CEST: > On 09/16/2010 11:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >More generally, it either also requires that we bump Automake's version > >requirement on Autoconf, or we make the "autom4te preselections" test in > >Autoconf less strict, so that it won

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter, I've looked over the non-testsuite part of this now. Comments below. I'll try to get the rest done this weekend. * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: > --- a/automake.in > +++ b/automake.in > @@ -396,6 +396,9 @@ my $package_version_location; > # TRUE if we've s

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On 09/16/2010 11:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: [ adding autoconf-patches ] * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: --- a/automake.in +++ b/automake.in @@ -5242,6 +5262,7 @@ sub scan_autoconf_traces ($) AM_GNU_GETTEXT_INTL_SUBDIR => 0, AM_

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

[ adding autoconf-patches ] * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: > --- a/automake.in > +++ b/automake.in > @@ -5242,6 +5262,7 @@ sub scan_autoconf_traces ($) > AM_GNU_GETTEXT_INTL_SUBDIR => 0, > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE => 0, > AM_MAINTAIN

[SIMPLE PATCHES] {maint} Minor improvements to maintainer checks

OK for maint? Regards, Stefano -*-*-*- [PATCH 1/2] New maintainer check, for typos in $required definition. * Makefile.am (sc_tests_required_typos): New maintaner check. (syntax_check_rules): Updated. From a report by Peter Rosin. --- ChangeLog |7 +++ Makefile.am |9 +

[SIMPLE PATCH] {maint} Test automake-generated portions of configure help screen.

Hello automakers. As a follow-up to the patch suggested by Jeff A. Daily: I'd like to use AS_HELP_STRING more consistently in the Automake-provided macros. To do that confidently, I'd like to increase the testsuite coverage a lit

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter, thanks for not giving up ;-) On Thursday 16 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-15 12:44 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > >> > >> ">&foo" is the same as ">foo 2>&1", or what am I missing? > > > > No, "&>foo" is the same as ">foo 2>&1" on bash and zsh (at > > least), but is not p

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-15 23:56 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > For now, I didn't get any further than just some comments upon comments > (a review-review, if you like): > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:45:17AM CEST: >> On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Den 2010-09-14 20:1