Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

References: On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > What's more: have you tried th

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

References: On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > > --- a/lib/am/

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:43:06PM CEST: > > On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > > > > --- a/lib/am/configure.am > > > > +++ b/lib/am/co

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > What's more: have you tried this patch on a nontrivial source tree > (where regenerating takes more than a second or so) with a few non-GNU > makes and GNU make? I kinda fear that it can cause an endless regen loop. > It doesn't I think. See the a

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:43:06PM CEST: > On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > > > --- a/lib/am/configure.am > > > +++ b/lib/am/configure.am > > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > > > ## %MAKEFILE% is

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > > --- a/lib/am/configure.am > > +++ b/lib/am/configure.am > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > > ## %MAKEFILE% is updated before considering the am--refresh target. > > The comment up here ^^

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

What's more: have you tried this patch on a nontrivial source tree (where regenerating takes more than a second or so) with a few non-GNU makes and GNU make? I kinda fear that it can cause an endless regen loop. It might actually be smarter to use some newer BSD make features to mark Makefile as

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > --- a/lib/am/configure.am > +++ b/lib/am/configure.am > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > ## %MAKEFILE% is updated before considering the am--refresh target. The comment up here ^^^ needs to be updated in this particular patch. > if %?TOPDI

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Tuesday 31 May 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > Thanks; this helped me to come up with this other entry, which while > being unfortunately more complex, is also more precise: > > remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories. > Remove the limitation that, with non-GNU

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Tuesday 31 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2011-05-30 22:22 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > [HUGE CUT] > > > In effect, using the present tense to describe a just fixed, and thus > > past, problem, is suboptimal and might be confusing. So what about > > this updated ChangeLog entry? > > > >

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

Den 2011-05-30 22:22 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Sunday 29 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2011-05-29 19:32 skrev Stefano Lattarini: >>> Hi Peter, thanks for the review. >> >> I wouldn't call it review, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction >> > Well, I still appreciate it anyway. > >> (and I

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

On Sunday 29 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2011-05-29 19:32 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Hi Peter, thanks for the review. > > I wouldn't call it review, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction > Well, I still appreciate it anyway. > (and I haven't even read the actual patch). > There's still tim

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

Den 2011-05-29 19:32 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > Hi Peter, thanks for the review. I wouldn't call it review, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction (and I haven't even read the actual patch). > On Sunday 29 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2011-05-29 16:26 skrev Stefano Lattarini: >>> Currently, e

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

Hi Peter, thanks for the review. On Sunday 29 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2011-05-29 16:26 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Currently, every decent non-GNU make program makes it possible > > to remake out-of-date autotools-generated files with a simple > > "make Makefile" issued from the top-le

Re: [PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

Den 2011-05-29 16:26 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > Currently, every decent non-GNU make program makes it possible > to remake out-of-date autotools-generated files with a simple > "make Makefile" issued from the top-level directory. And while > having to run "make Makefile" by hand isn't as convenien

[PATCH] {maint} remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories

Currently, every decent non-GNU make program makes it possible to remake out-of-date autotools-generated files with a simple "make Makefile" issued from the top-level directory. And while having to run "make Makefile" by hand isn't as convenient as the GNU make feature of "automatic remake *and re