On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:25:41PM CET:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Why not, I guess. Except that automake isn't really able to distinguish
between GNU extensions and a large class of typos or otherwise malform
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:25:41PM CET:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >Why not, I guess. Except that automake isn't really able to distinguish
> >between GNU extensions and a large class of typos or otherwise malformed
> >makefiles. Bothered enough to wr
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Why not, I guess. Except that automake isn't really able to distinguish
between GNU extensions and a large class of typos or otherwise malformed
makefiles. Bothered enough to write a patch? ;-)
To clarify what I meant, I meant splitting the non-po
Hello Reuben,
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 02:28:10AM CET:
> Would it be possible to have separate warnings for use of GNU
> extensions and other non-portable usages?
Why not, I guess. Except that automake isn't really able to distinguish
between GNU extensions and a large class
* Bruno Haible wrote on Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 01:14:43PM CET:
>
[ a good patch that I think there's no need to wait longer for approval ]
>
> Oops, I meant to remove only data.lock here. The suggested patch is this:
Thanks again, I've applied this to branch-1-10 and HEAD.
Cheers,
Ralf
2007-01-27
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:13:00AM CET:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >If I understand your comments correctly (which I'm not sure of), then
> >this patch against CVS HEAD should fix them. OK to apply?
>
> Seems OK to me with the exception of two tiny ty
