On 06/25/2012 09:46 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> case $1 in
>> ---run)
>> - # Try to run requested program, and just exit if it succeeds.
>> - run=
>> - shift
>> - "$@" && exit 0
>> - # Exit code 63 means version mismatch. This often happens
>> - # when the user try to use an ancient versio
On 06/20/2012 03:30 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Before this change, the missing script had a twofold role:
>
> - it warned the user if some required maintainer tools was missing,
> or too old;
>
> - in such a case, it tried to "fix" the timestamp of the files that
> should have bee
* Bruno Haible (br...@clisp.org) [20120624 13:05]:
> Unfortunately, a majority of the users (between 50% and 90%, I got the
> impression) runs "make; make install" without "make check".
>From my impressions I'd agree that 80 to 90% onlty do make; make install.
> And many of them would also ignor
On 06/25/2012 08:31 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 06/24/2012 03:42 PM, John Spencer wrote:
anything is better than a failed build.
Isn't this discussion moot now, with respect to musl?
That is, I thought the problem with musl and gnulib
is fixed, so we don't have a failed build now.
we still will
