[ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2006-10/msg00026.html ]
[ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2006-10/msg00036.html ]
Yeah, it's ancient... :-/
* Greg Schafer wrote on Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:51:35PM CEST:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:04:30PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:04:30PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> I think I have found the bug now.
...
> The fix is obvious: `autom4te' should always create the output file,
> if --force was given. Patch attached.
> I committed it to the Autoconf CVS.
>
> Greg, if you are willing to test the fi
Hello Greg and Ralf,
I think I have found the bug now.
There were two suspects: aclocal and autoconf.
First, I tried to find out whether aclocal does its work correctly by
that unfortunate grep (should have been `grep acinclude aclocal.m4').
But then Greg posted the diff, and I had an idea: per
* quoting myself:
> Since we fixed autoconf/lib/autom4te.cfg in Autoconf 2.60
The reasoning was wrong, the patch should still be right.
First, autoconf/lib/autom4te.in (sic) was fixed only after 2.60,
but second it was broken only for automake, not for aclocal.
So. There you have it. Now,
> D
Since we fixed autoconf/lib/autom4te.cfg in Autoconf 2.60, now when we
call $ACLOCAL, the traces that were created by the $AUTOCONF before are
sufficient; and since they appear with the same time stamp as all known
input files to aclocal.m4, they are used by autom4te. So we have to
tell the autom4
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:29:01PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Since we fixed autoconf/lib/autom4te.cfg in Autoconf 2.60, now when we
> call $ACLOCAL, the traces that were created by the $AUTOCONF before are
> sufficient; and since they appear with the same time stamp as all known
> input files
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> I stared at the code for a while but I wasn't find other potential
> cause of the problem. I would like to understand the cause of the
> problem, and thus I'd be grateful if you could perform some experiments
> to help us to find it.
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 07:45:44AM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:51:11AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Out of curiosity: how fast is this machine, how many and what kind of
> > CPUs does it have?
>
> Reasonably fast. 1 x AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ (dual core).
wel
Hello Greg,
Thanks for the report.
* Greg Schafer wrote on Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:37:26AM CEST:
>
> I'm testing automake-1.10 on i686-pc-linux-gnu and seeing an intermittent
> failure of acloca20.test. It fails for me roughly 1 in 4 attempts, but then
> other times it will pass 10 times in a ro
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:51:11AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Out of curiosity: how fast is this machine, how many and what kind of
> CPUs does it have?
Reasonably fast. 1 x AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ (dual core).
> Could you please show the time stamps when the failure happens. Like
> this (in
10 matches
Mail list logo
