Hello!
The CVS version of Automake fails in libtool2.test. There is no
mostlyclean-libtool in sub/Makefile.in.
I suggest that if a failing test is submitted, it should be added to
XFAIL_TESTS in the same commit. It should be removed from XFAIL_TESTS in
the same commit that fixes it.
This way
Pavel == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel I suggest that if a failing test is submitted, it should be
Pavel added to XFAIL_TESTS in the same commit. It should be removed
Pavel from XFAIL_TESTS in the same commit that fixes it.
I agree. Sorry about that. I checked in the fix.
Tom
"adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
adl Is it an "ok" for my proposal or a "no, keep it as it is now"?
adl Right now, I would have to call AC_CHECK_TOOL([STRIP],[strip])
adl in my configure.in *before* calling AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to make
adl thinks work.
Yeah. I think we
"Tom" == Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
adl Otherwise, as install-strip is concerned, another idea is to:
adl 1) not call AM_PROG_INSTALL_STRIP from AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
adl 2) revert all `commenting' that has been done in
"adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim Your explanation is very correct. AC_CHECK_TOOL only needs
Akim host_alias, hence there was no reason to require AC_CANONICAL_*.
adl Has anyone a plan to change this in Automake?
Eventually when we move to traces this will change.
Akim Demaille wrote:
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We probably need a special macro, e.g. AC_REQUIRE_FILE, so that the
macros will be able to indicate what files they need.
This is what Derek and I are working on :) But I doubt 2.50 will be
the good starting point, 2.51 will.
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I imagine we'll have to radically revamp the test suite when we
move to using autoconf's tracing feature. The current test suite
is very dumb and doesn't usually generate a correct configure.in.
Derek I'm working on this so I can test my
"Akim" == Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ideally we'd have some way to tell autoconf, "if this package can
be cross-compiled, then check for a cross `strip' as well". Maybe
there's an ugly way to do this.
Akim But I think your request is precisely AC_CHECK_TOOL. What
Akim exactly
Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel AC_CHECK_TOOL([STRIP],[strip])
Yes, I wasn't thinking. I've removed this.
Ideally we'd have some way to tell autoconf, "if this package can be
cross-compiled, then check for a cross `strip'
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel AC_CHECK_TOOL([STRIP],[strip])
Yes, I wasn't thinking. I've removed this.
Ideally we'd have some way to tell autoconf, "if this package can be
cross-compiled, then check for a cross `strip' as well". Maybe
there's an ugly way to do
10 matches
Mail list logo
