On 06/26/2012 09:07 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding bug-autoconf, for an autoconf documentation issue]
>
> On 06/26/2012 11:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> [adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
>>
>> On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>>> And while looking into how M4 differs from
tags 11793 + wishlist
thanks
> On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
>> coreutils uses this via a .m4 file included into its configure.ac:
>>
>> AM_MISSING_PROG(HELP2MAN, help2man)
>>
>> which is roughly supposed to se
Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 06:29 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 10:15 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> What about this: since the great majority of the packages out there do
>> not seem to override nor patch the Automake-provided auxiliary scripts,
>> we could just make automake always reinsta
[adding bug-autoconf, for an autoconf documentation issue]
On 06/26/2012 11:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
>
> On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
>> coreutils uses this v
On 06/26/2012 11:26 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 06:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
>> calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
>> with an already built project that used an older Automake
On 06/26/2012 10:15 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> What about this: since the great majority of the packages out there do
> not seem to override nor patch the Automake-provided auxiliary scripts,
> we could just make automake always reinstall such scripts by default;
> and allow the users to mark
[adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
> coreutils uses this via a .m4 file included into its configure.ac:
>
> AM_MISSING_PROG(HELP2MAN, help2man)
>
> which is roughly s
On 06/26/2012 12:04 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Any idea for a simple solution to this problem?
>>
>> Aren't there timestamps in the auxiliary scripts for a reason? If a
>> script is updated as part of a new automake release, can't automake
>> insert some sanity checks to see i
Eric Blake wrote:
> > Any idea for a simple solution to this problem?
>
> Aren't there timestamps in the auxiliary scripts for a reason? If a
> script is updated as part of a new automake release, can't automake
> insert some sanity checks to see if the currently-installed scripts have
> too old
On 06/26/2012 06:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
> calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
> with an already built project that used an older Automake version, then
> the 'Makefile' in that project will fa
Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 06:27 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Le 26 juin 2012 à 18:18, Eric Blake a écrit :
>
>> Just from reading this summary, the idea of improving AC_PROG_LEX and
>> AC_PROG_YACC to be more useful makes sense, especially if it would make
>> automake easier to maintain. What sort
Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
with an already built project that used an older Automake version, then
the 'Makefile' in that project will fail due to passing the --run
option when trying to
(wow, _that_ is quite a list of CCs. Hi mum!)
Hi Eric,
Le 26 juin 2012 à 18:18, Eric Blake a écrit :
> Eek - that just shows that I'm really behind on reading my email.
Thou shalt be punished. Beware of my wrath.
> Just from reading this summary, the idea of improving AC_PROG_LEX and
> AC_PR
On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Execute this with Automake 1.10.3:
>> $ aclocal
>> $ automake -Wall -a -c
>> configure.ac:2: installing `./install-sh'
>> configure.ac:2: installing `./missing'
>>
>> Then execute this with Automake 1.12:
>> $ aclocal
>> $ automake -Wall
>>
>> No
[adding autoconf]
On 06/26/2012 09:58 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Le 26 juin 2012 à 17:35, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
>
>> This is probably a better idea, yes. This could probably be done by
>> enhancing AM_PROG_LEX and defining a similar new AM_PROG_YACC macro.
>> Or better again, it could b
On 06/26/2012 05:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding bug-m4]
>
> On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
you let it install the correct 'missi
Le 26 juin 2012 à 17:35, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
> This is probably a better idea, yes. This could probably be done by
> enhancing AM_PROG_LEX and defining a similar new AM_PROG_YACC macro.
> Or better again, it could be done directly in AC_PROG_LEX and
> AC_PROG_YACC, so that we could just
[adding bug-m4]
On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
>>> projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
>>> you let it install the correct 'missing' program, instead of forcing it
>>> to use the 'mi
On 06/26/2012 04:34 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks for this!
>
> Le 25 juin 2012 à 16:01, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
>
>> When used with good yacc and lex implementations, like Flex and GNU Bison,
>> the 'ylwarp'
>
> ylwrap
>
>> script (meant to work around the deficiencies
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for this!
Le 25 juin 2012 à 16:01, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
> When used with good yacc and lex implementations, like Flex and GNU Bison,
> the 'ylwarp'
ylwrap
> script (meant to work around the deficiencies of older or
> inferior yacc and lex implementations) creates far
Hi all,
Le 25 juin 2012 à 11:30, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
>> Well, I guess I must step back. I installed what follows
>> in maint.
>>
> Sigh, advancement on Bison kept back by the fact that Automake used to
> bend over backwards to support inferior yacc implementation that today
> hardly any
Severity: minor
thanks
[Adding bug-automake]
On 06/26/2012 12:32 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
>> projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
>> you let it install the correct 'missing' p
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
> projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
> you let it install the correct 'missing' program, instead of forcing it
> to use the 'missing' from Automake 1.13.
But developers don't h
Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 05:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 03:30 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Before this change, the missing script had a twofold role:
>>
>> - it warned the user if some required maintainer tools was missing,
>> or too old;
>>
>> - in such a case, it tried to "
24 matches
Mail list logo
