On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Execute this with Automake 1.10.3: >> $ aclocal >> $ automake -Wall -a -c >> configure.ac:2: installing `./install-sh' >> configure.ac:2: installing `./missing' >> >> Then execute this with Automake 1.12: >> $ aclocal >> $ automake -Wall >> >> No warning. How is a developer meant to notice that he's doing something >> wrong if 'automake -Wall' does not tell him? >> > This is actually a good point. When you upgrade your build system to > a new Automake version, you should run automake with the "--force" option, > to ensure that the automake-installed scripts are updated even if they > are already present in the build tree. But if you fail to do so, you > don't get any warning, which is not very user-friendly and can cause such > hard-to-spot errors. > > Any idea for a simple solution to this problem?
Well, you _did_ add the new --is-lightweight option to the updated 'missing', and since running 'automake' already checks whether 'missing' is present (otherwise it suggests rerunning 'automake --install'), wouldn't it just be a matter of changing that check to instead be whether 'missing --is-lightweight' succeeds? That is, your new feature of a changed calling convention also came with an easily probed witness option. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature