Re: [PATCH] Updating code enabling Bourne-compatibility in test scripts

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 08:52:32PM CEST: > At Friday 09 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:37:29PM CEST: > > > Thus it should better to update tests/defs.in to use the newer > > > snippet provided by autoconf 2.64

two small check-related fixes in Automake

I've committed these two patches to maint, to fix 'make clean check', as well as 'cd tests; make recheck' after a test failure that involves an inner test using parallel-tests. Cheers, Ralf Fix `make clean check' for the Automake package. * lib/Automake/Makefile.am (SUBDIRS): Add `.'

Allow variable override of, rather than by, silent variables. (was: bfdlibdir and bfdincludedir change)

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:04:42PM CEST: > [ binutils/bfd/Makefile.am ] > However, the Makefile.am files > as they are now will currently cause automake to warn unconditionally: > > $ automake > Makefile.a

Re: testsuite failures when test scripts are run with zsh

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... >> Hmm, I'm a bit leery of making things read-only, but making sure >> the files contain a "generated by ... " line near the top seems a >> good idea. > In truth, I don't find that much useful in order to prevent > "unintentional" editing: I have ended up too many times

Re: [PATCH 2/N] LIBTOOLFLAGS, and *_LINK fixes for Automake 1.11

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:01:17PM CEST: > * Dave Korn wrote on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:55:29PM CEST: > > > Automake handling of per-target LDFLAGS rules changed which means > > > that if you override *_LIN

Re: testsuite failures when test scripts are run with zsh

Hi Jim, Stefano, * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:41:25PM CEST: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > ... > >> Hmm, I'm a bit leery of making things read-only, but making sure > >> the files contain a "generated by ... " line near the top seems a > >> good idea. > > In truth, I don't find th

Re: avoid a 1-second sleep in every configure script

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 01:14:16PM CEST: > Avoid sleeping for one second most of the time in sanity check. > > * m4/sanity.m4 (AM_SANITY_CHECK): Try sanity check first without > sleeping for a second, and only if that failed, sleep and try > again, to av

testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

Hi everybody. While trying to run the automake test scripts with the "Heirloom sh" (http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html, which should be quite similar to the Solaris/OpenSolaris shell), I ran into a spurious failure in test `vala4.test'. I still don't understand the real cause of the failure

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 05:49:20PM CEST: > While trying to run the automake test scripts with the "Heirloom sh" > (http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html, which should be quite > similar to the Solaris/OpenSolaris shell), I ran into a spurious > failure in test `vala4.tes

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Thanks for looking into this. I prefer not to paper over any bugs > that we don't understand, though. This is surely a good policy. I sent the patch only because I easily came up with it (by five minutes of trial-and-error experimenting), b

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 07:06:08PM CEST: > At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Note that while heirloom and Solaris sh are similar, they aren't > > identical, and I wouldn't want to invest work into fixing issues > > that are in the former only, since it'

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 07:06:08PM CEST: > > At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Note that while heirloom and Solaris sh are similar, they > > > aren't identical, and I wouldn't want to invest work i

parallel compression in 'make dist' (was: [PATCH] Automake support for ObjC++)

* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:11:58AM CEST: > Another completely unrelated item: > > it would be nice if Automake could run gzip and bzip2 (and others) in > parallel when creating the distribution tarballs. In a parallel make that > could save quite some time when running