Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-31 14:31: > On 01/31/2012 01:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here's a couple of missing AM_PROG_AR lines, ok for maint? >> > Alas no, because msvc is *not* merged into maint, so that we don't even > have AM_PROG_AR in maint :-(
Arrgh. Good catch! > You might instead want to merge maint into msvc, then apply this patch > to msvc, then merge msvc back into branch-1.11 and master. > > (I know, the present organization of branches sucks in some respects; > we might rethink it after the 1.11.3 release, OK?) I would love to send maint, msvc and branch-1.11 to some dump somewhere far away with a one-way ticket. They have simply diverged too much. At least for me, I'm only somewhat up to speed on the ar-lib mess, but you might be in a different position having written most (all?) of the other diverging changes. >> Subject: [PATCH] tests: add AM_PROG_AR to help losing archivers >> >> * tests/extradep.test (configure.in): Add AM_PROG_AR. >> * tests/extradep2.test (configure.in): Likewise. >> > By only reading this, I'm not sure whether the change is needed to pacify > some automake warning, to improve coverage, or to make the tests runnable > with Microsoft lib as the archiver. Could you add a paragraph after the > summary line that explicitly specifies what is the patch motivation? > > ACK with that addressed. Turns out these AM_PROG_ARs are already on master. So, the merge from maint into msvc should probably include them with a manual adjustment. I tried doing the merges you describe above, but it's too rich for my stomach. I get something that works, sort of, by I don't feel good about it and I have this feeling that some changes leaked into branch-1.11 that are not supposed to be there. I simply don't feel qualified and can't assess if my conflict resolutions are good or bad without further digging. Which I don't have time for, so I'm leaving those merges for someone else<tm>. Sorry. Regarding the requested extra paragraph in the commit message, is that really needed? I think it would be quite a bit of extra work to get an accurate description of the various failure cases, as I haven't kept the test suite results and would need to rerun the tests with/without patches and with varying compiler settings etc. It's a trivial bug, and as I said, the code is already there on master. Cheers, Peter
