On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 19:30 UTC, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Dave Hart wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:49:02AM CET: >> While you're waiting for that, >> perhaps you could pursue the problem I >> did take the time to provide a reduced test case for in November: >> >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2010-11/msg00135.html > >> Note that this issue is no longer a problem for NTP -- autogen's >> libopts now provides LIBOPTS_CHECK_NOBUILD, which sidesteps the need >> to conditionalize AC_CONFIG_FILES([libopts/Makefile]), and works >> correctly on Automake 1.10, which doesn't support AM_COND_IF >> conditionalization of AC_CONFIG_FILES. > > Good to know. > >> I am annoyed no one has taken the time to follow up after I took the >> time to produce a reduced test case illustrating the automake >> misbehavior, and each time I see a request for a reduced repro, I >> wonder what I might have done wrong in anticipating the request and >> providing the reduced test case in the initial report. > > I looked at it for maybe half an hour back then, and didn't see an easy > way to fix it. Sorry. I should maybe have followed up to let you know. > You didn't do anything wrong, otherwise I would eventually have asked. > But anyway we should've thanked you for the report, so please allow me > to thank you now for the nice and well-written bug report!
Thank you for the update. Knowing that you were able to understand my less-than-succinct report, and to recognize the problem, satisfies most of my concerns. > Generally, there are more bug reports than there are people looking at > them, analyzing and fixing them. As is the case in so many free > software projects. If you are dissatisfied with that, and you have > resources, you are very welcome to help out. I understand. > Other than that, I guess I > should encourage using our new-ish debbugs bug tracker (just write to > bug-automake to open a new PR) to be a little more sure issues don't get > lost. > > I typically try to make sure rather quickly that a report is complete, > so that when someone eventually gets to it, they have a chance to do > something productive with it even if the original reporter has gone off > to some other pasture in the meantime. > > Since you now have a workaround for your bug, I hope you understand that > the priority of it is rather low. Sorry again, but that's how bug > economics work, necessarily. I do understand the priority is low for practical reasons. From an engineering standpoint, I remain unsatisfied that Automake claims to allow conditionalizing AC_CONFIG_FILES in AM_COND_IF but flubs this instance. I will open a PR, thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious to me as I knew of the debbugs tracker for automake. Thanks for your time, Dave Hart