> On 15 Sep 2022, at 14:39, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 14:00 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>>> Very preliminary results (only mild testing done so far)
>>> but the only failure I've hit thus far is autoconf-2.71:
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/869257.
>>>
>>> I'll continue testing.
>>
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 14:00 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> > Very preliminary results (only mild testing done so far)
> > but the only failure I've hit thus far is autoconf-2.71:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/869257.
> >
> > I'll continue testing.
>
> It's been very quiet indeed, which is good news.
Th
> On 9 Sep 2022, at 05:36, Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8 Sep 2022, at 22:41, Sam James wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8 Sep 2022, at 08:12, Paul Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 03:47 +0100, Sam James wrote:
I started testing master recently and hit
https://savannah.gnu.org
> On 8 Sep 2022, at 22:41, Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8 Sep 2022, at 08:12, Paul Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 03:47 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>>> I started testing master recently and hit
>>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63016
>>> which prevented doing any more testing.
>>
>
> On 8 Sep 2022, at 08:12, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 03:47 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> I started testing master recently and hit
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63016
>> which prevented doing any more testing.
>
Hi Paul,
> Hopefully this is fixed. It works for the examples
On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 03:47 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> I started testing master recently and hit
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63016
> which prevented doing any more testing.
Hopefully this is fixed. It works for the examples given anyway.
I also downgraded the required version of autoconf to
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 18:59 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> When we started testing in Gentoo (not unleashed onto users),
> we had several failures that looks liked this almost immediately.
I see, thanks. I will look at this tonight. Clearly this change
introduces too severe a regression to accept as-
> On 6 Sep 2022, at 15:58, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 03:47 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> I started testing master recently and hit
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63016
>> which prevented doing any more testing.
>
> Just curious: why does this prevent doing any more testing?
>
an patching make, but I wouldn't wish that
extra work on Sam.
From: Bug-make on behalf of
Paul Smith
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 07:58
To: Sam James
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: Re: New release of GNU make
* EXTERNAL EMAIL *
On Mon, 2022-09-
. In the previous release,
B would not be exported to the $(shell ...) function and so this issue
doesn't come up. In the new release, it is and it does.
I think there's a better way to handle this than the one you suggest
but I will need to look more closely at it. I agree that li
> On 3 Sep 2022, at 23:55, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I would like to work on putting out a new release of GNU make. I've
> fixed, or merged patches for (thanks especially to Dmitry) most of the
> issues that I had in mind for this release, except one: I&
> I just use `git clean -fdx`
Force, recurse into untracked directories and ignore gitignore so that build
products are deleted. Just the ticket, thanks. README.git mentions "clean"
and "distclean" but not this handy trick.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 9:53 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 00:28 +, Martin Dorey wrote:
> > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/make.git/commit/configure.ac?id=079
> > 3658c09a8f33581dae6dfbe2483ea279e72b1
> >
> > ... imposed a dependency on autoconf 2.71.
>
> I'm not sure if the
On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 00:28 +, Martin Dorey wrote:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/make.git/commit/configure.ac?id=079
> 3658c09a8f33581dae6dfbe2483ea279e72b1
>
> ... imposed a dependency on autoconf 2.71.
I'm not sure if there's a need for this new autoconf version or not, I
can look at
instead of make
distclean.
From: Bug-make on behalf of
Paul Smith
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 15:56
To: bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: New release of GNU make
* EXTERNAL EMAIL *
Hi all.
I would like to work on putting out a new release of GNU make.
Hi all.
I would like to work on putting out a new release of GNU make. I've
fixed, or merged patches for (thanks especially to Dmitry) most of the
issues that I had in mind for this release, except one: I'd really like
to fix the problem we currently have with handling fatal signals (l
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 14:19 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> A while back there was talk about making Make a bit smarter about
> understanding implicit dependencies make-sphere stuff:
>
> http://gnu-make.2324884.n4.nabble.com/Idea-Add-COMMANDCHANGE-and-CACHE-td19133.html
>
> I've come to like the id
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 18:09 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> I'm thinking of putting out a new release of GNU make early in the
> new year.
Hi all; just an update on this:
The company I work for was acquired, so I need to redo my disclaimer
with my new benevolent overlords. I've done
Update of bug #56749 (project make):
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #3:
A new release candidate has been publis
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #56749 (project make):
I agree. The new "&:" all by itself is worth a new release. Enabling clean
compiles on common systems (at least Linux) would be a big improvement.
I think having releases more often (say annually) would be better for all, as
long a
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #56749 (project make):
I really must agree.
At this time the make 4.2.1 release from 6 Jun 2016 will not
compile cleanly on modern Linux systems with modern glibc.
There are a number of small patches required on different
systems and kernel revs however it does seem t
URL:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?56749>
Summary: Any chance to make new release?
Project: make
Submitted by: kloczek
Submitted on: Sun 11 Aug 2019 04:28:35 PM UTC
Severity: 3 - Normal
Item Group
On 4/30/19 9:44 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 16:51 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
So then. New release ?
Yes, it's on deck. I know I've said this before.
I'm finishing up a huge months-long project at $RealJob. All the major
code is finally done and pushed
On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 16:51 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> So then. New release ?
Yes, it's on deck. I know I've said this before.
I'm finishing up a huge months-long project at $RealJob. All the major
code is finally done and pushed.
This week is filled with graduatio
64 hardware reports strange results in the
testsuite after some hacks just to get a compile going.
So then. New release ?
--
Dennis Clarke
RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC
UNIX and Linux spoken
GreyBeard and suspenders optional
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/
[2] https://savanna
Hi all; due to the issue related to double-colon rules I plan to make a
4.2.1 release, probably tonight, containing that fix (which appears to
work OK) and a few other cleanups as already committed.
If there are other quick-fix things appropriate for a 4.2.1 release let
me know.
_
Hi Paul,
are you planning to make a new release anytime soon?
I noticed the version currently in Debian testing still contains
some output-sync bugs (e.g. the buggy Makefile "all:; $(foreach"
does not produce an error message with "--output-sync", which is
fixed in git), so
27 matches
Mail list logo
