On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> ...
>>> However, if you know of such test failures, it'd be nice to mark
>>> them as XFAIL as soon as you can -- even if just for a few days --
>>> to avoid wasted effort.
>>>
>> But by doing so we would risk to let such failu
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
>> However, if you know of such test failures, it'd be nice to mark
>> them as XFAIL as soon as you can -- even if just for a few days --
>> to avoid wasted effort.
>>
> But by doing so we would risk to let such failures "slips through the
> cracks"... Still, having th
On 02/12/2012 05:29 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've seen this new failure. But the best fix is IMHO to improve the
>> new 'am__make_dryrun' instead (which is proving a little to much brittle
>> in other contexts). This spurious failure will probably disappear by
* tests/dist-formats.tap: Some versions of the BSD shell wrongly
bail out when the 'errexit' shell flag is active and the left-hand
command in a "&&" list fails and that list is the *last* command
of a "case" statement. This was causing an incorrect initialization
of the '$missing_compressors' var
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Jim.
>
> On 02/12/2012 04:04 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I noticed this an hour or two ago:
>>
>> FAIL: makefile-deps
>> ===
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> That's due to this new part of every Makefile.in:
>>
>> $ grep -C5 '^ *:' Makefile.in
>> am__make
And yet another couple of spurious failures are fixed here.
-*-*-
>From 682d5ce5382ab50d63eaf9fe373a1370bb435b6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id:
<682d5ce5382ab50d63eaf9fe373a1370bb435b6f.1329063521.git.stefano.lattar...@gmail.com>
From: Stefano Lattarini
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:16:54 +01
On 02/12/2012 04:39 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> Also, to avoid some new spurious failures, I've applied the attached
> follow-up patch.
>
And the patch below fixes yet another spurious failure.
Regards,
Stefano
-*-*-
>From e0906b7e17bc34b1183d273ca0571c10d5619c08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
On 02/12/2012 03:59 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> I have cloned 'master' into a temporary branch 'yl-work-for-master',
> merged master in there, and pushed.
>
> I will merge the 'yl-work-for-master' branch back into master in 72
> hours or so if there is no objection by then.
>
Also, to avoid som
Hi Jim.
On 02/12/2012 04:04 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I noticed this an hour or two ago:
>
> FAIL: makefile-deps
> ===
>
> [SNIP]
>
> That's due to this new part of every Makefile.in:
>
> $ grep -C5 '^ *:' Makefile.in
> am__make_dryrun = \
> { \
> am__dr
I noticed this an hour or two ago:
FAIL: makefile-deps
===
Running from installcheck: no
Using TAP: no
PATH =
/h/j/w/co/automake/tests:/opt/cov-sa-linux64-5.4.0/bin:/usr/lib64/ccache:/h/j/bin/perl:/h/j/bin:/p/p/git/bin:/p/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local:/us
I have cloned 'master' into a temporary branch 'yl-work-for-master',
merged master in there, and pushed. You can find the resulting branch
here:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/log/?h=yl-work-for-master
Below are the commit message and the stats of the merge, and attached
is the
* tests/list-of-tests.mk: Update to take into account the addition,
renaming, removing or split-ups of Yacc/Lex tests that have taken
place in the 'yacc-work' branch. Problem likely introduced by a
botched merge of 'maint' into 'yacc-work'.
---
tests/list-of-tests.mk | 46 ++
The chapter on Automake history, while certainly interesting and
even fascinating, does not truly pertain to a reference manual,
so move it out from there and into its own dedicated file. This
change is made more advisable and pressing by the fact that such
and "Automake history" chapter hasn't be
Hi Peter, sorry for the delay.
Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Libtool normally puts objects related to shared libs in .libs so that they
> don't clash with objects from the static libs. But if libtool isn't doing
> any static libs, it puts the objects for the shared libs where it otherwise
> wo
14 matches
Mail list logo
