On 06/26/2012 04:32 AM, 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' program, instead of forcing it
>> to use the 'mi
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' p
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 h
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 "
On 06/25/2012 09:46 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> case $1 in
>> ---run)
>> - # Try to run requested program, and just exit if it succeeds.
>> - run=
>> - shift
>> - "$@" && exit 0
>> - # Exit code 63 means version mismatch. This often happens
>> - # when the user try to use an ancient versio
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 timestamp of the files that
> should have bee
On 06/21/2012 09:36 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 05:44 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
>> Looks good.
>>
> Thanks. I will push by tomorrow if nobody objects.
>
Pushed.
Regards,
Stefano
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>>
>> While I agree fix-timestamps.sh might be a clearer name, using the
>> name bootstrap for the clone-from-VCS before-first-configure step.
>> NTP tarballs carry a "bootstrap" script, though it
On 06/21/2012 05:44 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree fix-timestamps.sh might be a clearer name, using the
>>> name bootstrap for the clone-from-VCS before-first-configure step.
>>> N
Hi Dave.
On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
> I had no idea missing would monkey with timestamps like that. I'm
> wholeheartedly in favor of removing that capability in the name of
> predictably correct results.
>
Glad you agree :-)
> While I agree fix-timestamps.sh might be a clearer na
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
> I had no idea missing would monkey with timestamps like that. I'm
> wholeheartedly in favor of removing that capability in the name of
> predictably correct results.
>
> While I agree fix-timestamps.sh might be a clearer name, using the
> nam
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:30 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 timestamp of the files that
> should have
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 timestamp of the files that
should have been rebuilt by that tool (without actually updating
the file
13 matches
Mail list logo
