At Tuesday 08 December 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks for continuously updating your patch; and sorry for not
> getting it in before 1.11.1/1.10.3.
Don't worry, I see that there are more important patches pending and
more urgent work to be done.
Anyway, in the meantime I
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:09:34PM CET:
> I have rebased my private branch against master, and also amended the
> patch a bit (to deal with the test `cscope.test', which used a
> `$MAKE 2>stderr' redirection that I missed). The updated patch is
> attached.
I have rebased my private branch against master, and also amended the
patch a bit (to deal with the test `cscope.test', which used a
`$MAKE 2>stderr' redirection that I missed). The updated patch is
attached.
Regards,
Stefano
From e9666da90920c1373bfe6f9cbf8aa1e4e50c2b8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Aaargh! There is a bug (another), with heirloom-sh this time.
> Apparently, shell traces are not enabled/disabled in run_command()
> the way they should.
> Please do not apply the patch until I'll had figured out and fixed the
> problem (I've no time right now, maybe to
Aaargh! There is a bug (another), with heirloom-sh this time.
Apparently, shell traces are not enabled/disabled in run_command()
the way they should.
Please do not apply the patch until I'll had figured out and fixed the
problem (I've no time right now, maybe tomorrow I can do something).
Regard
Hello automakers.
The final version of the patch is attached.
Sorry for the long delay, but being new to FreeeBSD I messed up things
more than one time while runnning tests on that system.
The patched testsuite runs succesfully on Debian/Linux with
either bash, zsh 3 or zsh 4. With heirloom-sh
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Ralf.
>
> A new version of the patch is attached. It's still not definitive,
> but I hope most things are settled by now.
And, of course, they're not. Sigh.
With FreeBSD-7.2 /bin/sh, the construct:
if eval "$run_evald_cmd"; then
run_exitcode_got=0
else
r
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:24:38PM CEST:
> At Tuesday 13 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > First off, I think that run_command really should Exit when the
> > command does not produce the intended status. It should not be
> > necessary to do run_co
I attached a new version of the patch. Please note that it still
doesn't address the remarks and objections made in the present mail.
At Tuesday 13 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> > I understand. But what about instead susbstituting everywhere
> > `run_command $AUTOMAKE
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:04:59PM CEST:
> At Saturday 10 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I didn't make myself clear enough, sorry. What I meant was that we
> > shouldn't change uses of $AUTOMAKE with redirections to
> > 'run_command $AUTOMAKE' when
Hi Jim, Stefano,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:41:25PM CEST:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> ...
> >> Hmm, I'm a bit leery of making things read-only, but making sure
> >> the files contain a "generated by ... " line near the top seems a
> >> good idea.
> > In truth, I don't find th
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
>> Hmm, I'm a bit leery of making things read-only, but making sure
>> the files contain a "generated by ... " line near the top seems a
>> good idea.
> In truth, I don't find that much useful in order to prevent
> "unintentional" editing: I have ended up too many times
At Saturday 10 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:42:52AM CEST:
> [CUT]
> > > Hmm, I see a few inconsistencies cropping up here. First, we
> > > already have AUTOMAKE_run. It has slightly different syntax.
> > > With your patch, some aut
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:42:52AM CEST:
> At Friday 09 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I'd shorten this to:
> >
> > Use run_command throughout.
> I'd prefer to keep it a bit more verbose. I settled for this:
> "Use new subroutine run_command instead of hand
At Thursday 08 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> Hello Stefano,
>
>
> Thanks. A few nits (and I hope you don't mind that I'm being
> fairly nit-picky below):
>
> [CUT]
> Cheers, and thanks for your work on this,
> Ralf
Wow, that was a lot of stuff! I think it will take me some time to
re
Hello Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:01:51PM CEST:
> The master branch of the automake Git repository has advanced again
> since I submitted the latest version of my patch. In particular, a new
> test cases has been added, which required some editing to work smooth
16 matches
Mail list logo
