Re: [PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245: FreeBSD make in concurrent mode report spurious success in automake-generated tests harness)

2011-08-18 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: What is useful information today may become 'lore' in a few years so it would be good to add additional data so that the reader (and documentation maintainer) knows the vintage of the

Re: [PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245: FreeBSD make in concurrent mode report spurious success in automake-generated tests harness)

2011-08-18 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: OK, given your considerations, I've updated my patch with the attached squash-in. The amended patch is attached too. Let me know if it is good to apply now. This seems much better to me. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us,

[PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245: FreeBSD make in concurrent mode report spurious success in automake-generated tests harness)

2011-08-16 Thread Stefano Lattarini
[dropping bug-automake, adding autoconf-patches] References: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9245 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=159730 On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Hi Eric. On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Eric Blake wrote: On 08/16/2011 10:04

Re: [PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245: FreeBSD make in concurrent mode report spurious success in automake-generated tests harness)

2011-08-16 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: What is useful information today may become 'lore' in a few years so it would be good to add additional data so that the reader (and documentation maintainer) knows the vintage of the information. That's a good point. Do you think it would be OK