Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 20:58, Bob Friesenhahn ha scritto: >>> >> Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where >> the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-( >> >>> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less >>> harm to the free software world >>

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables > >>> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this >>> incompatibility

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables >> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this >> incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying >> transition to Aut

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> >> Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where >> the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-( >> >>> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-( If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less harm to the free software world Which harm are you

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> > * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables >> > > I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this > incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying > transition to Automake-NG, sorry. > >> > * warn for treating _SOUR

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 10:30 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> And I've done that already where possible and reasonable. For example, >>> the 'silent-rules' option is now active by default, and the tags-related >>> rules have been reworked and improved. > > Well, from a distro maintainer's view this a bad ide

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 07:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> >> Maybe we just need good PR and "advertisment" in this. The python >> developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x >> series, because they've been very clear and vocal abo

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 6/7] [ng] dist: new API to specify formats of distribution tarballs

On 08/21/2012 06:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 18:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> On 08/21/2012 06:24 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 12/08/2012 23:20, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >>> Nice, but I'm not sure why this couldn't have a backwards-compatible >>> replacement. >>> >> B

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Maybe we just need good PR and "advertisment" in this. The python developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the breakage, and have been for a long time. We might

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are: >>> >>> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'? >>> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too? > > And another question: > > * Alternatively, could Automak

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 06:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are: > This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. B

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 6/7] [ng] dist: new API to specify formats of distribution tarballs

Il 21/08/2012 18:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > On 08/21/2012 06:24 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 12/08/2012 23:20, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> Nice, but I'm not sure why this couldn't have a backwards-compatible >> replacement. >> > Because Automake-NG is not meant to be 100% backward c

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 21/08/2012 09:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > In Fedora we already are pushing around package maintainers to pass > appropriate options to configure to revert this change, because silent > make rules are non-suitable for building distros in batch jobs. The same is true for Gentoo. > In other words

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 18:30, Ralf Corsepius ha scritto: >> >> Yes, that's correct. PR and advertisement is what lacked in the early >> Autoconf 2.5x releases. > > Really? That's not how I recall the situation. I recall people turning > away from autoconf in disgust because of the numerous incompatiblitie

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 6/7] [ng] dist: new API to specify formats of distribution tarballs

On 08/21/2012 06:24 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 12/08/2012 23:20, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> The API to specify the formats of distribution tarballs has been changed >> completely, in a BACKWARD-INCOMPATIBLE way. >> >> Instead of using the various 'dist-*' automake options, the developer is

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are: This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of which are good things! And I've done that already whe

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 6/7] [ng] dist: new API to specify formats of distribution tarballs

Il 12/08/2012 23:20, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > The API to specify the formats of distribution tarballs has been changed > completely, in a BACKWARD-INCOMPATIBLE way. > > Instead of using the various 'dist-*' automake options, the developer is > now expected to specify the default formats of

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 18:01, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto: > >>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are: >>> >>> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'? >>> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too? > > And another question: > > * Alternatively, could Autom

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are: >> >> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'? >> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too? And another question: * Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest converting suffix rules to pattern rules so th

[Automake-NG] Fwd: [BUG] Possible hang of make with tricky use of BUILT_SOURCES (was: Re: [PATCH 0/5] build: refactoring and preparations for Automake-NG)

[Adding the Automake-NG list in CC] On 08/21/2012 08:37 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/08/2012 21:56, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> After these changes, the Smalltalk build system still works with >> mainline Automake (and only with it), but will be much easier to >> modify to convert it to A

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 05:49 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone >> not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x >> branch), >> bison, dejagnu, parted and aut

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 05:09 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have >> made sense would have been a mapping like > > Yes that would have helped _a lot_. > > Another thing that would have helped would

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone > not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x > branch), > bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf has already been successfully converted: > >

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto: do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really hope the answer is yes, of course). >> From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less >> painful. It w

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 05:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something >> different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and >> with very, very similar design and API; and that a

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have > made sense would have been a mapping like Yes that would have helped _a lot_. Another thing that would have helped would have been out-of-the-box support for multiple installed versi

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto: >> > do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really >> > hope the answer is yes, of course). > From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less > painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages usin

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something > different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and > with very, very similar design and API; and that a transition between > the two won't be seamless --

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 21/08/2012 07:32, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really > hope the answer is yes, of course). >From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using autoconf-2.1

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >> But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next >> version of Automake, it is the "Next Generation": it's not meant to >> be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede

Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next > version of Automake, it is the "Next Generation": it's not meant to > be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede Automake, > because the two projects have differen

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG

Il 21/08/2012 12:10, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: >>> (AC_SUBST): Define AM_VARTYPOS_WHITELIST to "LIBFFI_EXECUTABLE_LDFLAGS >>> RELOC_LDFLAGS". This is required because Automake-NG is stricter than >>> mainline Automake in its make runtime checks on possible typos in >>> variables like 'foo_SOUR

[Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG (was: Re: [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG)

On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 12:10, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: (AC_SUBST): Define AM_VARTYPOS_WHITELIST to "LIBFFI_EXECUTABLE_LDFLAGS RELOC_LDFLAGS". This is required because Automake-NG is stricter than mainline Automake in its make runtime checks

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG

[Adding the Automake and Automake-NG lists in CC] Reference: On 08/21/2012 11:28 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 11:22, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > > Cool, let's look at it one by one. > >> * configure.ac (AC_