Re: bug#13524: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/14/2013 08:10 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> >>> A substantial blocker for converting large packages to non-recursive >>> builds will be eliminated. Considerable time and electricity will >>> be saved. >> >> By chance, do you plan to start using

Re: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: A substantial blocker for converting large packages to non-recursive builds will be eliminated. Considerable time and electricity will be saved. By chance, do you plan to start using the feature in some package of yours, even before it lands in a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/14/2013 03:53 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> From: Peter Rosin >> >> The rationale for this change is that it is annoying to have >> to repeat the directory name when including a Makefile fragment. >> For deep directory structures these repea

Re: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: From: Peter Rosin The rationale for this change is that it is annoying to have to repeat the directory name when including a Makefile fragment. For deep directory structures these repeats can generate a lot of bloat. It also hinders reuse and easy

automake-patches@gnu.org

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
I will push this series to maint in a couple of days if there is no objection. Reviews are welcome. Regards, Stefano Stefano Lattarini (4): refactor: rip module Automake::Language out of automake script build: auto-generate perl subroutines prototypes for automake and aclocal maint: use

automake-patches@gnu.org

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
We can do so now that our build rules auto-generate a list of prototypes for all functions ins our scripts. * automake.in: Adjust throughout. * HACKING: Adjust advises. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- HACKING | 5 +- automake.in | 552 ++---

[PATCH 3/4] maint: use more perl subroutines prototypes in the automake script

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* automake.in: Throughout this file. Note that these new prototypes are not much useful, since many subroutine calls still use the old '&foo' form; but we'll take care of that in later patches. * lib/Automake/Language.pm (target_hook): Call the '_target_hook' of the given language in a more modern

[PATCH 2/4] build: auto-generate perl subroutines prototypes for automake and aclocal

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
This will allow us to avoid either using the '&foo' invocation form when invoking a subroutine before its definition, or having to maintain the list of prototypes by hand (with the risk of having it become incomplete or fall out-of-sync when future edits to the automake and aclocal scripts are done

[PATCH 1/4] refactor: rip module Automake::Language out of automake script

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
This is just a preparatory patch in view of future changes. * lib/Automake/Language.pm: New module, ripped out from ... * automake.in: ... here. Related adjustments. * Makefile.am (dist_perllib_DATA): List the new module. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- Makefile.am | 1 + a

Re: bug#13524: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/14/2013 01:20 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS >> index 6dcce72..e27e0cf 100644 >> --- a/NEWS >> +++ b/NEWS >> @@ -100,6 +100,18 @@ New in 1.13.2: >> be longer necessary, so we deprecate it with run

Re: bug#13524: [PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Bert Wesarg
Hi, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > From: Peter Rosin > > The rationale for this change is that it is annoying to have > to repeat the directory name when including a Makefile fragment. > For deep directory structures these repeats can generate a lot > of bloat. It

[FYI] {branch-1.13.2} tests on TAP: don't run the driver with perl unconditionally

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* t/ax/tap-setup.sh: When a 'Makefile.am' was pre-existent in the test directory at the moment the client test script sourced this file, said 'Makefile.am' was tweaked to provide it with a proper definition of TEST_LOG_DRIVER. However, there was an error in this automatic definition, since it caus

[FYI] {branch-1.13.2} tests: remove obsolete (and now wrong) comment

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* t/ax/am-test-lib.sh: Here. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- t/ax/am-test-lib.sh | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/ax/am-test-lib.sh b/t/ax/am-test-lib.sh index f3fcacc..8508197 100644 --- a/t/ax/am-test-lib.sh +++ b/t/ax/am-test-lib.sh @@ -439,8 +439,6 @@ fetch_tap_dri

[PATCH 2/2] preproc: enhance and extend tests

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* t/preproc-demo.sh: New test, a "demo" of how the new pre-processing feature could be used in a real-world package. * t/preproc-errmsg.sh: New test, check that error messages remain useful when the new pre-processing features are involved. * t/preproc-reldir.sh: Split up ... * t/preproc-basics.sh,

[PATCH 1/2] preproc: add support for relative names in included fragments

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
From: Peter Rosin The rationale for this change is that it is annoying to have to repeat the directory name when including a Makefile fragment. For deep directory structures these repeats can generate a lot of bloat. It also hinders reuse and easy directory restructuring if all Makefile fragment

[PATCH 0/2] Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

2013-02-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/08/2013 01:31 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/08/2013 10:11 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Stefano Lattarini wrote: Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more control on the final result, feel free to shepherd