[PATCH] tests/yaccdry.test ($required): Require bison. (was: Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.)

I'm seeing this failure in test yaccdry.test at the Hydra continuous build system for automake: > FAIL: yaccdry.test (exit: 2) > > /tmp/nix-build-9l5zbyj69kwsr3iyps70a2a5nsnpj7hn-automake-1.11a.drv-0/automake-1.11a/tests

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET: > Fix and document rules to not touch the tree with `make -n'. > > * doc/automake.texi (Multiple Outputs): Document the problem of > modifications during dry-run execution, propose solution. > * NEWS: Update. >

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:23:30PM CET: > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET: > > > > Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hello Ralf. On Saturday 06 November 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET: > > > Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ... > > > > > > - $o

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET: > > Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ... > > > > - $output_rules .= "\$(srcdir)/$headerfile: > > > \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n". > >

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET: > Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ... > > - $output_rules .= "\$(srcdir)/$headerfile: > > \$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n". > > - "\...@if test -f \$@; then :; else \\\n". > > -

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ... On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > diff --git a/automake.in b/automake.in > index cb5fe24..42eff2b 100644 > --- a/automake.in > +++ b/automake.in > @@ -6070,11 +6070,11 @@ sub lang_vala_finish_target ($$) >

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:08PM CET: > > On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET: > > > > Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET: > > Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases... > > Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch > (just in case that wasn't clear). I di

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:08PM CET: > On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET: > > > Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases... > > > > Thanks; but I didn't mean

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:30:34PM CET: > > On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n': > > > > > > 1) The solutions doc

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET: > Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases... Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch (just in case that wasn't clear). That said, I'll reply to your comments inline. > On Monday 01 Nov

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:30:34PM CET: > On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n': > > > > 1) The solutions documented in the `Multiple Outputs' node are not safe > > for use wit

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases... On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET: > > 3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and > > Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstance

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

Hi Ralf. Thanks for these fixes, I really think that "make -n" should really be dry-run if possible. On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n': > > 1) The solutions documented in the `Multiple Outputs' node are not safe

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET: > 3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and > Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstances, too. [...] > I'm not sure how useful it is to fix (3). It is not easy as a user to > get GNU make to not update any of th