[FYI] {testsuite-work} tests: automatically handle deps also for generated tests

* tests/gen-testsuite-part: The test scripts are now scanned for automatic dependency generation *after* the auto-generated tests have been created, so they too will be scanned. It is a little tricky to ensure that the freshly-generated tests are correctly scanned, and we do that with the help of

[FYI] {testsuite-work} tests: auto-generate deps for tests requiring libtool/gettext

* tests/gen-testsuite-part: Tests requiring libtool (or related programs) will need libtool-provided m4 macros, so they should be run after `libtool-macros.test'. Similarly for gettext tests. So, generate proper declarations of such dependencies. * tests/Makefile.am: Remove now-unneeded hand-writt

[FYI] {testsuite-work} tests: remove FIXME comments from tricks to pacify syntax checks

Originally, I myself had insisted on adding those "FIXME" comments near every unusual construct or use of "creative quoting" whose only purpose was to avoid false positive from out syntax checks. I did that with the expectation that we could have easily and soon added a whitelisting capability to o

[FYI] {testsuite-work} tests: few minor fixlets, improvements and tweakings

* tests/defs-static.in ($top_testbuilddir): New, for consistency and completeness. * tests/Makefile.am (do_subst): Substitute @abs_top_testbuilddir@ as well. * tests/java-compile-run-mested.test: Prefer AM_TESTS_ENVIRONMENT over TESTS_ENVIRONMENT, now that the former has become available. * tests/j

[FYI] {maint} tests: remove redundant uses of `set -e'

* tests/deleted-am.test: Do not set the `errexit' shell flag, as it is already set by `tests/defs'. * tests/deleted-m4.test: Likewise. * tests/dist-missing-am.test: Likewise. * tests/dist-missing-am.test: Likewise. * tests/dist-missing-m4.test: Likewise. * tests/dist-missing-included-m4.test: Likew

Re: [RFC] Merging testsuite-work into master

On 12/23/2011 02:33 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-12-23 11:17: >> HI Jim. >> >> On 12/23/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Stefano Lattarini wrote: Any objection to the idea of finally merging the testsuite-work branch back into master? >>> >>> No objection at

[FYI] Removed branch dist-refactor

The dist-refactor branch has already been merged into testsuite-work (which will be soon merged into master), is not active anymore, and is not planned to be developed further, so I've removed it. Regards, Stefano

Re: [RFC] Merging testsuite-work into master

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-12-23 11:17: > HI Jim. > > On 12/23/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Any objection to the idea of finally merging the testsuite-work branch back >>> into master? >> >> No objection at all. Please do. >> > I'll still wait a couple of d

[FYI] Merge branch maint into msvc,

commit 54af9ca84664208507afed2ee2707145b2d2890a Merge: b722b10 007455d Author: Stefano Lattarini AuthorDate: Fri Dec 23 13:41:11 2011 +0100 Commit: Stefano Lattarini CommitDate: Fri Dec 23 13:41:11 2011 +0100 Merge branch 'maint' into msvc * maint: (56 commits) tests: fix

[FYI] Merge branch 'maint' into branch-1.11

commit a3309f02fb4217beceb714e64b4ca2bcd9bc1dae Merge: 42c3c7d 007455d Author: Stefano Lattarini AuthorDate: Fri Dec 23 13:31:40 2011 +0100 Commit: Stefano Lattarini CommitDate: Fri Dec 23 13:31:40 2011 +0100 Merge branch 'maint' into branch-1.11 * maint: (23 commits) test

Merge branch 'maint' into testsuite-work

commit 8f5274a94fd12afa4fea7b2df4be0f5ca4dce705 Merge: 23acc63 007455d Author: Stefano Lattarini AuthorDate: Fri Dec 23 13:18:19 2011 +0100 Commit: Stefano Lattarini CommitDate: Fri Dec 23 13:18:19 2011 +0100 Merge branch 'maint' into testsuite-work * maint: tests: fix fai

Merge branch 'master' into testsuite-work

commit 23acc63042bd7ad7ce81f6b0d6a4437a0712301d Merge: c62c2c4 3749d84 Author: Stefano Lattarini AuthorDate: Fri Dec 23 10:15:29 2011 +0100 Commit: Stefano Lattarini CommitDate: Fri Dec 23 10:25:58 2011 +0100 Merge branch 'master' into testsuite-work * tests/gettext-macros.test:

[FYI] {maint} tests: fix failure due to debugging code forgotten into a test

* tests/missing-tar.test: Don't ever call the `missing' script with `sh -x'; this was used for debugging, but an instance of it slipped into the committed test case. Bug revealed by a failure on a Solaris 10 system with GNU tar installed as `gtar'. --- ChangeLog |8 test

Re: [RFC] Cleaning up automake branches

On 12/23/2011 11:08 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Hello automakers. >> >> A look at: >> >> >> >> shows that it's probably time to tie up some loose ends there, by removing >> redundant branches, and turning old

Re: [RFC] Merging testsuite-work into master

HI Jim. On 12/23/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Any objection to the idea of finally merging the testsuite-work branch back >> into master? > > No objection at all. Please do. > I'll still wait a couple of days to give Peter and Ralf a chance to chime in, if the

Re: [RFC] Cleaning up automake branches

Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hello automakers. > > A look at: > > > > shows that it's probably time to tie up some loose ends there, by removing > redundant branches, and turning old and unactive ones into tags. > > Here is my proposals: >

Re: [RFC] Merging testsuite-work into master

Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Any objection to the idea of finally merging the testsuite-work branch back > into master? No objection at all. Please do.

[RFC] Cleaning up automake branches

Hello automakers. A look at: shows that it's probably time to tie up some loose ends there, by removing redundant branches, and turning old and unactive ones into tags. Here is my proposals: * I suggest to turn the branches `master

[RFC] Merging testsuite-work into master

Hello automakers. Any objection to the idea of finally merging the testsuite-work branch back into master? Keeping them separate is becoming quite artificial (in addition to causing more work than is warranted), since there's no way we are going to release a 1.12 version that doesn't include the

Re: bug#9928: bug#10237: AM_SILENT_RULES does not work with NonStop make

[adding automake-patches -- which I should have done before] On 12/22/2011 10:56 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/21/11 04:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Paul, thanks for the respin. My comments and objections are inlined. > > Thanks, I have a patch updated with all those comments in mind. > O