Jim Meyering writes:
>> Did you notice any other problem? Looking through the changes again, I
>> only see syntax-check related stuff, or harmless stuff.
>
> Your patch looked fine.
I have pushed the following patch to gnulib now.
/Simon
>From 7f62c240e1767245b2a58aca8347377f99346e03 Mon Sep
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> The only thing that is missing is to make it easy for maintainers to put
>>> something in cfg.mk that disables some checks they don't care about,
>>> alternatively list the checks they do care about.
>>
>> That's already possible.
>> Just add names of unwanted checks to t
Jim Meyering writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ...
>> But the checks aren't turned on by default, are they? The maintainer
>> needs to invoke the specific rules manually.
>
> Yes, they are run as part of "make syntax-check", by default.
Ah, right.
>> I'd like something like that: I think mult
Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> But the checks aren't turned on by default, are they? The maintainer
> needs to invoke the specific rules manually.
Yes, they are run as part of "make syntax-check", by default.
>> Also, the diagnostic-checking rules are insufficiently general. At the
>> very least,
Jim Meyering writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I'm beginning to think that incremental syncing of maint.mk will never
>> finish, the sync targets are moving too quickly.
>>
>> I propose to just import the coreutils maint.mk into gnulib, and then
>> move forward from there on. The patch below t
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that incremental syncing of maint.mk will never
> finish, the sync targets are moving too quickly.
>
> I propose to just import the coreutils maint.mk into gnulib, and then
> move forward from there on. The patch below takes coreutils' maint.mk,
> an
