Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 05:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/20/2012 03:30 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Before this change, the missing script had a twofold role:
- it warned the user if some required maintainer tools was missing,
or too old;
- in such a case, it tried to fix the
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
you let it install the correct 'missing' program, instead of forcing it
to use the 'missing' from Automake 1.13.
But developers don't have
Severity: minor
thanks
[Adding bug-automake]
On 06/26/2012 12:32 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
you let it install the correct 'missing'
Hi all,
Le 25 juin 2012 à 11:30, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
Well, I guess I must step back. I installed what follows
in maint.
Sigh, advancement on Bison kept back by the fact that Automake used to
bend over backwards to support inferior yacc implementation that today
hardly anybody is
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for this!
Le 25 juin 2012 à 16:01, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
When used with good yacc and lex implementations, like Flex and GNU Bison,
the 'ylwarp'
ylwrap
script (meant to work around the deficiencies of older or
inferior yacc and lex implementations) creates far
On 06/26/2012 04:34 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for this!
Le 25 juin 2012 à 16:01, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
When used with good yacc and lex implementations, like Flex and GNU Bison,
the 'ylwarp'
ylwrap
script (meant to work around the deficiencies of older or
Le 26 juin 2012 à 17:35, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
This is probably a better idea, yes. This could probably be done by
enhancing AM_PROG_LEX and defining a similar new AM_PROG_YACC macro.
Or better again, it could be done directly in AC_PROG_LEX and
AC_PROG_YACC, so that we could just
On 06/26/2012 05:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[adding bug-m4]
On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'm almost inclined not to do so, to force the affected
projects' broken setup to be fixed; i.e., if you are using Automake 1.11,
you let it install the correct 'missing' program,
[adding autoconf]
On 06/26/2012 09:58 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 26 juin 2012 à 17:35, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
This is probably a better idea, yes. This could probably be done by
enhancing AM_PROG_LEX and defining a similar new AM_PROG_YACC macro.
Or better again, it could be done
On 06/26/2012 05:23 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Execute this with Automake 1.10.3:
$ aclocal
$ automake -Wall -a -c
configure.ac:2: installing `./install-sh'
configure.ac:2: installing `./missing'
Then execute this with Automake 1.12:
$ aclocal
$ automake -Wall
No warning. How is a
Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
with an already built project that used an older Automake version, then
the 'Makefile' in that project will fail due to passing the --run
option when trying to
Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 06:27 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 26 juin 2012 à 18:18, Eric Blake a écrit :
Just from reading this summary, the idea of improving AC_PROG_LEX and
AC_PROG_YACC to be more useful makes sense, especially if it would make
automake easier to maintain. What sort of
On 06/26/2012 06:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
with an already built project that used an older Automake version, then
the 'Makefile' in that project will fail
Eric Blake wrote:
Any idea for a simple solution to this problem?
Aren't there timestamps in the auxiliary scripts for a reason? If a
script is updated as part of a new automake release, can't automake
insert some sanity checks to see if the currently-installed scripts have
too old of a
On 06/26/2012 12:04 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
Any idea for a simple solution to this problem?
Aren't there timestamps in the auxiliary scripts for a reason? If a
script is updated as part of a new automake release, can't automake
insert some sanity checks to see if the
[adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
coreutils uses this via a .m4 file included into its configure.ac:
AM_MISSING_PROG(HELP2MAN, help2man)
which is roughly
On 06/26/2012 10:15 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
What about this: since the great majority of the packages out there do
not seem to override nor patch the Automake-provided auxiliary scripts,
we could just make automake always reinstall such scripts by default;
and allow the users to mark
On 06/26/2012 11:26 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 06/26/2012 06:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
Commit a22717dffe3 removed the --run argument, since our new preferred
calling conventions now imply it; but if a newer 'missing' is mixed
with an already built project that used an older Automake
[adding bug-autoconf, for an autoconf documentation issue]
On 06/26/2012 11:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
[adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
coreutils uses this via a
Hi Eric.
On 06/26/2012 06:29 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/26/2012 10:15 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
What about this: since the great majority of the packages out there do
not seem to override nor patch the Automake-provided auxiliary scripts,
we could just make automake always reinstall such
tags 11793 + wishlist
thanks
On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I noticed that
coreutils uses this via a .m4 file included into its configure.ac:
AM_MISSING_PROG(HELP2MAN, help2man)
which is roughly supposed to set $(HELP2MAN)
On 06/26/2012 09:07 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[adding bug-autoconf, for an autoconf documentation issue]
On 06/26/2012 11:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
[adding bug-automake, to turn into a formal bug]
On 06/26/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
And while looking into how M4 differs from coreutils, I
22 matches
Mail list logo
