On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:40PM CET:
> > This change is useful only in view of soon-to-follow refactorings
> > and simplifications, related to the fixing of Automake bug#7669
> > a.k.a. PR/54
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 07:49:16PM CET:
> On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:21:56PM CET:
> >
> > I'm not sure it works to put AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE in an included macro.
> >
> Apparently it does, at least
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 06:45:07PM CET:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:44PM
> > > CET:
>
> > > > +cat > Makefile.am <<'END'
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:21:56PM CET:
> > More checks on warnings/strictness in precedence ("metawarnings").
>
> metawarnings is not a proper word, how about just eliding the part in
> parentheses?
Done; I also removed
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 06:45:07PM CET:
> On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:44PM CET:
> > > +cat > Makefile.am <<'END'
> > > +AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = $(foo) foreign
> > > +AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS +=
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> OK with that addressed.
>
I agree with all the remarks; here is what I squashed in:
-*-*-
diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
index e3ebe03..5d98224 100644
--- a/NEWS
+++ b/NEWS
@@ -97,11 +97,11 @@ Bugs fixed in 1.11a:
make bug triggered by source
Hi Stefano,
* stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:40PM CET:
> This change is useful only in view of soon-to-follow refactorings
> and simplifications, related to the fixing of Automake bug#7669
> a.k.a. PR/547.
>
> * automake.in (%am_remake_options): New global hash va
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:44PM CET:
> > In view of soon-to-follow refactorings (still in the pursuit of a
> > fix for Automake bug#7669 a.k.a. PR/547), we add some more tests
>
> How about s/we //
>
Oops, I
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:44PM CET:
> > In view of soon-to-follow refactorings (still in the pursuit of a
> > fix for Automake bug#7669 a.k.a. PR/547), we add some more tests
>
> How about s/we //
>
> > on
Also, due to the amendedings to previous patches in the series,
the following squash-in is now necessary.
-*-*-
diff --git a/automake.in b/automake.in
index 06146cb..578df7c 100644
--- a/automake.in
+++ b/automake.in
@@ -8521,7 +8521,7 @@ sub parse_arguments ()
&parse_warnings ('-W', $warn
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:39PM CET:
> > 2010-12-20 Stefano Lattarini
> >
> > + Warnings win over strictness on command line.
>
> Please add a line like
> For PR automake/547:
>
> on a line by
* stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:44PM CET:
> In view of soon-to-follow refactorings (still in the pursuit of a
> fix for Automake bug#7669 a.k.a. PR/547), we add some more tests
How about s/we //
> on AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS support, to prevent obvious regressions.
>
>
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:21:56PM CET:
> More checks on warnings/strictness in precedence ("metawarnings").
metawarnings is not a proper word, how about just eliding the part in
parentheses? Yes, I know I'm probably too picky on language; if it
starts bothering you, I'l
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 07:02:53PM CET:
> Update NEWS about the warnings-over-strictness precedence.
>
> * NEWS: Automake explicit warning levels always take precedence
> over the implicit warning levels implied by Automake strictness.
> --- a/NEWS
> +++ b/NEWS
> @@ -91,
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:38PM CET:
> > * tests/silent-rules-nowarn.test: New test.
> > * tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Update.
>
> How about "silent-nowarn.test" for consistency with the other names?
> OK wit
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:31:18PM CET:
> On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Feel free to push the patch series
> > (as far as OKed) on a new branch based off of maint,
> >
> Hmmm.. currently my private branch is based off of master, since I
> thought it
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> I'm not sure if I'll get through the whole series today, but I gotta
> start somewhere, so here we go. Feel free to push the patch series
> (as far as OKed) on a new branch based off of maint,
>
Hmmm.. currently my private branch
* stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:39PM CET:
> 2010-12-20 Stefano Lattarini
>
> + Warnings win over strictness on command line.
Please add a line like
For PR automake/547:
on a line by itself here, as done in some (older) ChangeLog entries, and
put
* stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:27:38PM CET:
> * tests/silent-rules-nowarn.test: New test.
> * tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Update.
How about "silent-nowarn.test" for consistency with the other names?
OK with or without that change.
Thanks,
Ralf
Hi Stefano,
I'm not sure if I'll get through the whole series today, but I gotta
start somewhere, so here we go. Feel free to push the patch series
(as far as OKed) on a new branch based off of maint, if that is helpful
for you. Thanks.
* stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Dec 23, 2010 a
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> this has since been applied to maint:
>
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:46:26PM CET:
> > Subject: [PATCH] Work around a bug in file-inclusion mechanism of Solaris
> > make.
> >
> > * automake.in (handle_s
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:23:48PM CET:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET:
> > > > Ok for maint?
> > >
> > > OK with nits address
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:23:48PM CET:
> On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET:
> > > Ok for maint?
> >
> > OK with nits addressed. Do we have testsuite coverage for this?
> >
> Not yet, b
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > +pkglib_PROGRAMS = foo
> > > +doc_LIBRARIES = libquux.a
>
> Another nit: can we find less obviously bogus combinations that users
> might actually want to use? It is sometimes necessary to put _DATA in
> libdir (if only because there is no a
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET:
> > Ok for maint?
>
> OK with nits addressed. Do we have testsuite coverage for this?
>
Not yet, but once this patch is applied, I might easily extend the
new tests in pending pa
> > +pkglib_PROGRAMS = foo
> > +doc_LIBRARIES = libquux.a
Another nit: can we find less obviously bogus combinations that users
might actually want to use? It is sometimes necessary to put _DATA in
libdir (if only because there is no automake primary for the file
type). I'm not sure I know of a
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET:
> Ok for maint?
OK with nits addressed. Do we have testsuite coverage for this?
Thanks,
Ralf
> docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couple
>
> * doc/automake.texi (Uniform): Document the blessed idiom whi
27 matches
Mail list logo
