Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread Olaf Hering
On Tue, Oct 16, David Champion wrote: +conststrings.c: txt2c.py + ( \ + $${CC-cc} --version || \ + $${CC-cc} -v || \ + $${CC-cc} -V || \ + echo unknown compiler; \ + ) 2/dev/null | python txt2c.py cc_version conststrings.c + grep

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Laight
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 06:14:54PM -0500, David Champion wrote: +conststrings.c: txt2c.py + ( \ + $${CC-cc} --version || \ + $${CC-cc} -v || \ + $${CC-cc} -V || \ + echo unknown compiler; \ + ) 2/dev/null | python txt2c.py cc_version

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Champion
* On 18 Oct 2012, David Laight wrote: You want a dependency against config.status. Good, thanks. Please don't make the build require python. A lot of systems don't have it installed. There are much easier ways to get bits of strings compiled into a .c file. 1) just echo ''text

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Champion
* On 17 Oct 2012, Moritz Barsnick wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 18:14:54 -0500, David Champion wrote: Comments? - Does this introduce a new dependency on python for building mutt? - Would the build fail mysteriously if python txt2c.py fails? Because of leaving an empty conststrings.c

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Champion
* On 18 Oct 2012, Olaf Hering wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, David Champion wrote: +conststrings.c: txt2c.py + ( \ + $${CC-cc} --version || \ + $${CC-cc} -v || \ + $${CC-cc} -V || \ + echo unknown compiler; \ + ) 2/dev/null | python txt2c.py

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread Patrick Welche
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:57:52PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Does anyone else think this is problematic? I could redo it in C if it's a widespread concern. As you're offering, I think that would be preferable :-) Cheers, Patrick

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread Rado Q
=- David Champion wrote on Thu 18.Oct'12 at 13:01:53 -0500 -= - Does this introduce a new dependency on python for building mutt? It would be proper to detect python in configure.ac. See other response to David Laight - I'll willing to redo in C if people think this is problematic. It's

[PATCH] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output (closes #3537)

2012-10-18 Thread David Champion
Thanks for the reviews! Changes: * Uses a C txt2c instead of Python - no new build prereqs * conststrings.c depends on config.status * conststrings.c created atomically to avoid race condition under parallel make Any other observations? I'll plan to push this otherwise. # HG changeset patch #

Re: [PATCH] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output (closes #3537)

2012-10-18 Thread David Champion
Too many things happening at once here. There are other changes: * removes the gcc output stanza from muttbug/flea. * adds cflags (because muttbug showed it) * On 18 Oct 2012, David Champion wrote: Thanks for the reviews! Changes: * Uses a C txt2c instead of Python - no new build prereqs *

Re: [PATCH] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output (closes #3537)

2012-10-18 Thread Dan Fandrich
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:12:21PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Thanks for the reviews! Changes: * Uses a C txt2c instead of Python - no new build prereqs But it's going to break when cross-compiling, whereas the Python version doesn't. Dan

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Laight
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:57:52PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Does anyone else think this is problematic? I could redo it in C if it's a widespread concern. As you're offering, I think that would be preferable :-) Actually

Re: [PATCH RFC] Add compiler and configure info to mutt -v output

2012-10-18 Thread David Laight
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:48:32PM +0100, David Laight wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:57:52PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Does anyone else think this is problematic? I could redo it in C if it's a widespread concern.