On 02/01/2012 10:33 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 22:31:
>> On 02/01/2012 09:31 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
is not used even if needed, causing testsuit
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 22:31:
> On 02/01/2012 09:31 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 02/01/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
>>> is not used even if needed, causing testsuite fails if
>>> libtool is not used.
>>>
>>> * tes
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 21:31:
> On 02/01/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
>> is not used even if needed, causing testsuite fails if
>> libtool is not used.
>>
>> * tests/depcomp8a.test: Uncomment the AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro
>>
On 02/01/2012 09:31 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
>> is not used even if needed, causing testsuite fails if
>> libtool is not used.
>>
>> * tests/depcomp8a.test: Uncomment the AM_PROG_CC_C_O ma
On 02/01/2012 03:59 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
> is not used even if needed, causing testsuite fails if
> libtool is not used.
>
> * tests/depcomp8a.test: Uncomment the AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro
> in its correct location, as indicated...
> (confi
When AM_PROG_CC_C_O is after AC_OUTPUT, the compile script
is not used even if needed, causing testsuite fails if
libtool is not used.
* tests/depcomp8a.test: Uncomment the AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro
in its correct location, as indicated...
(configure.in): ...with this comment.
* tests/depcomp8b.test: S
On 02/01/2012 12:30 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 11:29:
>
>> Keeping maint and branch-1.11 very close was the plan initially, but we
>> (and I think it was you who pressed for this ;-) decided that the MSVC
>> stuff was better to be published in the 1.11.
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 11:29:
> On 02/01/2012 10:40 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On the "drop maint" line of discussion, I don't think that's a wise
>> move. If you drop maint - and release directly from branch-1.11 -
>> you'd "leak" e.g. the version change in configure.ac into master the
* configure.ac, NEWS, m4/amversion.m4: Bump version to 1.11.3a,
as per HACKING suggestion.
---
NEWS| 15 ++-
configure.ac|2 +-
m4/amversion.m4 |4 ++--
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
index 8200f34..0b1e7a4 100644
-
* configure.ac (AC_INIT): Bump version number to 1.11.3.
* NEWS: Likewise.
* m4/amversion.m4 (AM_AUTOMAKE_VERSION): Likewise.
* doc/automake.texi (Release Statistics): Update, as suggested
by "make release-stats".
---
NEWS |4 ++--
configure.ac |2 +-
doc/automake.texi |
On 02/01/2012 10:40 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-31 22:23:
>> On 01/31/2012 09:30 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-31 14:31:
On 01/31/2012 01:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
(I know, the present organization of branches sucks in some respect
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-31 22:23:
> On 01/31/2012 09:30 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-31 14:31:
>>> On 01/31/2012 01:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> (I know, the present organization of branches sucks in some respects;
>>> we might rethink it after the 1.11.3 relea
12 matches
Mail list logo
