[ moving from automake bug#7868 ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:06:48AM CET:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:19:24PM CET:
> > On Thursday 20 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > That is the reason the check-TESTS rule is so ugly (and recursive) in
[dropping automake-patches]
Hi Ralf, and thanks for this very useful documentation enhancement.
Some nits in-line below ...
On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [ moving from automake bug#7868 ]
>
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:06:48AM CET:
> > * Stefano L
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:14:27PM CET:
> On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > docs: new sections about macros and comments, substitutions.
> >
> Why the comma after "comments"? Has the sentence got borked somehow?
It's supposed to be a two-item li
automake/tests/fn99{,subdir}.test have been long-time failures on
AIX 5.[123], but not 6.1 or newer (and IIRC not 4.3.3 either):
http://autobuild.josefsson.org/automake/log-201101181921915482000.txt
| + make distcheck
| make dist-gzip am__post_remove_distdir='@:'
| { test ! -d "fn
[dropping automake-patches]
On 01/22/2011 05:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> automake/tests/fn99{,subdir}.test have been long-time failures on
> AIX 5.[123], but not 6.1 or newer (and IIRC not 4.3.3 either):
> http://autobuild.josefsson.org/automake/log-201101181921915482000.txt
>
> | + make dist
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:46:29PM CET:
> On 01/22/2011 05:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > automake/tests/fn99{,subdir}.test have been long-time failures on
> > AIX 5.[123], but not 6.1 or newer (and IIRC not 4.3.3 either):
> > http://autobuild.josefsson.org/automake/
[dropping automake-patches]
On 01/22/2011 03:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Good suggestion. They should be mentioned in the portability section of
>> autoconf.texi if they aren't already, and as ## comments in check.am.
>
> Proposed patches for Automake maint and Autoconf below.
In addition
* Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:03:02PM CET:
> Should we also mention the converse issue of non-comments? That is,
> Posix requires that # embedded in the middle of a rule (and not a macro)
> is okay. Which is why gnulib's include-next module works [...]
Yes, sure. There already e
