Hi Stepan, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:57:14PM CEST: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:40:30PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stepan Kasal wrote on Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:40:33AM CEST: > > > 1) mktests.sh is no longer a maintainer tool, thus > > > $(TESTSUITE_GENERATED_AT) > > > are no longer distributed, > > > > I understand that mktests.sh is no longer considered maintainer-only, so > > > this > > > should be OK. > > > > Dangerous. I don't like this much. > > well, in a sense it is dangerous to build anything on user's machine.
This is a broad statement. Experience with anything in Autoconf shows that it takes a long time to produce something truly portable. So now we're trying to make mktests.sh portable in a few weeks; I'm trying to say it's an illusion to assume that we're done _right now_. When a few months have passed after any more changes were necessary, then you may rightly claim this. But not after two weeks that have seen an almost complete rewrite of it. And even more so when, at a glance, one can find more potential issues. What, for example, about the two occurrences of `trap 0'? Are they portable? Wouldn't it have to be trap '' 0 instead, as the manual suggests because of the thread referenced in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-01/msg00040.html even if we don't know whether there's a shell where it fails? So we overlooked that until now; how do we dare claim that it's portable immediately after fixing this one? Furthermore, it's always helpful to make oneself aware that a certain part of applied changes introduce new bugs, whether you like it or not; and it's this amount I'm trying to minimize. That's what stabilization is all about, and that's why I'm trying to rigorously reject anything that changes more than necessary. > This change simplifies tests/Makefile.am, so I tend to like it. This statement is a direct argument to skip this for 2.60: no simplifications now, only actual bug fixes. > The prerequisite is a portable implementation of mktests.sh, which is > doable. Yes. Given enough time. > > I don't like a genuine target name that ends in `.tmp' much, to be > > honest. > > And what about ``testsuite.new''? That's better. > > > Moreover I made the change discussed elsewhere that mktests.sh should > > > fail in the created *.at file happens to be empty. > > > > You forgot to adjust the part in the trap. > > I thought that the trap code is OK (it is triggered by the `exit 1'). > What have I missed. The trap code touches several files. Isn't that wrong for them to have new time stamps in the error case? Cheers, Ralf
