On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 23:46 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote:
> I have configured with --disable-load. I had to apply the patch below
> (self explanatory i think) for 'make check' to return with no error.
>
> Moreover:
> 1) when configured with --disable-job-server, the tests in
> features/parallelism
> No, that wouldn't work. It's not the individual command (between
> simicolons) that's too long, the problem is that make can't invoke the
> shell itself because the command line + environment is too large. The
> only way to work around this limitation is to avoid invoking a single
> command tha
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 14:47 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > *sigh* If it weren't for the enter/leave messaging, the output-sync
> > feature would have been quite straightforward! :-/ :-).
>
> I'm afraid so. But I think we're almost there now.
I've pushed what I hope are
On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 07:28 +, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > I've never understood why someone would use $(shell ...) in a recipe...
> > I mean, the recipe will be run in the shell!!
>
> I remember we once had a library where the command-line to the archiver
> was too long (about a quarter megab
> I've never understood why someone would use $(shell ...) in a recipe...
> I mean, the recipe will be run in the shell!!
I remember we once had a library where the command-line to the archiver
was too long (about a quarter megabyte, IIRC). We worked round this by
having a temporary scratch dir,
