On 2/23/24 3:51 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I.e. you meant to write
> mode != None
> not
> modules != None
> ?
Oops. I'm not sure how I missed this in your original email as well...
You are correct. It should be "mode != None". I should have a patch
ready in a bit to fix another item in the gnul
Hi Collin,
> > * gnulib-tool.py line 610:
> > +if modules != None and "tests" in mode and gnu_make:
> > ^^^
> > What is the rationale for this condition? It is not present in the
> > original. Can
> > it be removed?
>
> I added this condition in an attempt to mirror c
Hey Bruno, thanks for the feedback.
On 2/23/24 5:08 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Just three small nits that you might want to revisit:
>
> * gnulib-tool.py line 610:
> +if modules != None and "tests" in mode and gnu_make:
> ^^^
> What is the rationale for this condition?
Hello Collin,
Collin Funk wrote:
> Hello, here is a patch implementing the --gnu-make option for
> gnulib-tool.py.
Thanks! Applied. This was already a major piece of work.
> All of these
> commits were grouped together and were similar so I felt like it
> didn't make too much sense to handle the
ssed.
Thanks,
Collin
[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/admin/merge-gnulibFrom edf3dd7dc7f0d8c2b4bd77213554a236e23dca4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Collin Funk
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:16:18 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 27.
Follow gnuli
