Hi Mike,
On 11/12/21 15:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 11 Dec 2021 09:33, Peter Johansson wrote:
On 10/12/21 15:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
if it's dropped, i'm not sure how users are supposed to fix things.
the error message says to install GNU coreutils, but if GNU coreutils
uses automake and pr
Hi Mike, Peter,
> or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work,
I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for cosmetic
purposes.
test -z "$(VAR)" || rm -f $(VAR)
does not actually seem "awful" to me. And I fail to see any significant
gain by simplifying it.
Whatever
it probably comes down to being a bit clearer on what autotools'
goals are and what it considers reasonable prerequisites.
I'd find it hard to define precisely. As a general rule, I wouldn't want
to lose support for any system that is working now, until we can be
really sure that it is no
Hi folks,
hope you don't mind an outsider (occasional Autotools user) joining the
discussion with some trivia.
On 12/11/21 22:52, Karl Berry wrote:
Hi Mike, Peter,
> or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work,
I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for cosme
Mike,
i tend to agree with this sentiment that the macro doesn't really fit
with automake's mission. and more importantly, i think the ecosystem
has grown significantly since the macro was first added back in 1996.
I also agree, but I still wouldn't want to delete the macro and thus
On 11 Dec 2021 15:42, Karl Berry wrote:
> i tend to agree with this sentiment that the macro doesn't really fit
> with automake's mission. and more importantly, i think the ecosystem
> has grown significantly since the macro was first added back in 1996.
>
> I also agree, but I still
