Re: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... >> I propose to push the result of doing this: >> >> $ git ci -m 'maint: run "make update-copyright"' -a >> [maint aafc6b5] maint: run "make update-copyright" >>1041 files changed, 1041 insertions(+), 1266 deletions(-) >> > Hmm... It now occurs to me that, if w

Re: [PATCH] {master} docs: move chapter on automake history out of main manual

On 02/14/2012 09:46 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/12/2012 11:38 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> 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. T

Re: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright

On 02/14/2012 09:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Jim. >> >> On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> >>> Here's the adjusted c-set: >>> >>> From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Jim Meyering >>> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16

Re: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright

Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Jim. > > On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> Here's the adjusted c-set: >> >> From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Jim Meyering >> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:57:42 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to u

Re: [PATCH] {master} docs: move chapter on automake history out of main manual

On 02/12/2012 11:38 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > 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 th

[FYI] {master} check: fix test-suite.log formatting with NetBSD sed

* lib/am/check.am (am__rst_section): Tweak to ensure en extra final newline is printed also with NetBSD sed. Issue revealed by a failure of 'test-metadata-global-result.test'. * tests/rst-formatting.test: New test, checking the internal variables '$(am__rst_title)' and '$(am__rst_section)'. * test

Re: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright

Hi Jim. On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > > Here's the adjusted c-set: > > From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering > Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:57:42 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright > > *

Re: [RFC] Removing obsolete branch 'branch-1-10'

Hi Eric. On 02/14/2012 04:07 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/14/2012 05:30 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> The branch 'branch-1-10' is long obsolete, and only has the following >> commit on the top of the 'v1.10.3' tag: >> > >> >> I thus think it's safe to remove it. Objections? I will proceed to

[PATCH] tests: avoid ksh bug for wildcards in EXTRA_DIST (was: Re: [RFC] dist: better support for wildcards in EXTRA_DIST)

On 02/14/2012 03:06 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > This patch fixes the described problem, but then, ouch :-(, it breaks > the 'dollar.test' test case, which checks that automake supports files > with `$' characters in their names (Java people need this). Any idea > on what we should do? > I no

Re: [RFC] Removing obsolete branch 'branch-1-10'

On 02/14/2012 05:30 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > The branch 'branch-1-10' is long obsolete, and only has the following > commit on the top of the 'v1.10.3' tag: > > > I thus think it's safe to remove it. Objections? I will proceed to the > removal in 48 hours or so if there is no objection b

Re: Merging 'yacc-work' into master

On 02/14/2012 05:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Maybe we should aim for a cleaner and more general solution, and "resurrect" > and extend the following patch by Eric Blake instead: > > > > BTW, Eric, any reason for which you n

[RFC] dist: better support for wildcards in EXTRA_DIST

Some shells, like NetBSD 5.1 /bin/ksh, have a bug that causes wildcards resulting from an unquoted parameter expansion not to be expanded as expected: $ touch a b c d $ /bin/sh -c 'var="[ab]" && echo $var' # As expected. a b $ /bin/ksh -c 'var="[ab]" && echo $var' # Oops. [ab] This was

[FYI] {master} fixup: fix test tap-signal.tap to avoid false negatives

Problem introduced by yesterday commit v1.11-1851-g79b2c6a, "tests: avoid yet other spurious failures on NetBSD" * tests/tap-signal.tap: Truly ensure the exit status of the make call under test is correctly reflected in the TAP result displayed by the corresponding 'command_ok_' invocation. --- t

[FYI] Deleted branch 'silent-fixes'

The branch 'silent-fixes' has been safely merged into maint, and hasn't seen any change in the last couple of months. And since it had been conceived from the beginning as a temporary topic branch, I think it's now safe and proper to remove it. I've thus proceeded to do so. Regards, Stefano

[FYI] Deleted branch 'mh-vala-support'

The branch 'mh-vala-support' had been long ago merged into the development line that was the pre-1.11 'next', and that is into today's 'maint'; also, it hasn't been used nor developed for quite a long time now, the vala-relevant changes taking place directly in the maint branch or in temporary topi

Re: makefile-deps.test false positive, how to handle?

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-14 13:41: > On 02/14/2012 01:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Commit v1.11-685-g947ce0e of 07-02-2012 added code for am__make_dryrun >> that triggers a false positive in makefile-deps.test. >> > Please see: > >

Re: makefile-deps.test false positive, how to handle?

On 02/14/2012 01:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi! > > Commit v1.11-685-g947ce0e of 07-02-2012 added code for am__make_dryrun > that triggers a false positive in makefile-deps.test. > Please see: and follow-up messages.

makefile-deps.test false positive, how to handle?

Hi! Commit v1.11-685-g947ce0e of 07-02-2012 added code for am__make_dryrun that triggers a false positive in makefile-deps.test. I see two alternative approaches, which should I commit? 1. Avoid the check in the test From: Peter Rosin Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:55:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] fixup

[RFC] Removing obsolete branch 'branch-1-10'

The branch 'branch-1-10' is long obsolete, and only has the following commit on the top of the 'v1.10.3' tag: commit 2d04de7f50160e642904ea261900d02f7e64b2e2 Author: Ralf Wildenhues AuthorDate: Tue Dec 8 22:01:12 2009 +0100 Commit: Ralf Wildenhues CommitDate: Tue Dec 8 22:03:24

Re: [FYI] {yl-work-for-master} fixup: remove double news entry

On 02/13/2012 06:51 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/13/2012 10:45 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 02/13/2012 04:47 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> >>> I have pushed the following as obvious: >>> >>> From: Peter Rosin >>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:43:34 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] fixup: remove double n

Re: [FYI] {master} depcomp tests: do not specify LDFLAGS for static libraries

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-14 09:46: > On 02/14/2012 03:05 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I'm cleaning up after myself with this follow-up. Sorry >> for the noise... >> > Thanks for the fix. Just one minor nit, for future changes ... > >> Commit v1.11-1848-gb3f34ca >> > When referring

Re: Merging 'yacc-work' into master

On 02/14/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > That appears to work, > Pushed then. > but I suffered from some confusion due to the > fact that tests/defs-static isn't regenerated on configure.ac changes > Oops, you're right. My bad. We should fix this in a follow-up patch. > (I edited by hand

Re: Merging 'yacc-work' into master

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-14 10:11: > On 02/14/2012 02:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> >> I don't get that, because the config.log from the top configure has >> >> LEX='false' >> YACC='false' >> >> and config.status has >> >> S["LEX"]="false" >> S["YACC"]="false" >> >> Question is,

Re: Merging 'yacc-work' into master

On 02/14/2012 02:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > [SNIP] > > I don't get that, because the config.log from the top configure has > > LEX='false' > YACC='false' > > and config.status has > > S["LEX"]="false" > S["YACC"]="false" > > Question is, when does those false values turn into the lex/yacc def

Re: [FYI] {master} depcomp tests: avoid redundant runs for non-libtool test

On 02/14/2012 03:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi! > > I'm pushing this as obvious. > > -*-*- > > When running the dependency tests without libtool, it's > not meaningful to run the tests three-fold, the libtool > configure options are simply ignored anyway. > > * tests/depcomp.sh: Only run the test

Re: [FYI] {master} depcomp tests: do not specify LDFLAGS for static libraries

On 02/14/2012 03:05 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi! > > I'm cleaning up after myself with this follow-up. Sorry > for the noise... > Thanks for the fix. Just one minor nit, for future changes ... > Commit v1.11-1848-gb3f34ca > When referring to past commits, we should also refer to them with their