* cfg.mk (sc_preprocessor_indentation): New syntax-check rule.
---
This has no mercy if cppi is not installed. Should I rework
it to give a nicer warning in that case, especially since
cppi is not in FC12?
cfg.mk |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
Eric Blake wrote:
* cfg.mk (sc_preprocessor_indentation): New syntax-check rule.
---
This has no mercy if cppi is not installed. Should I rework
it to give a nicer warning in that case, especially since
cppi is not in FC12?
Yes, please.
I doubt that requiring people to build from
source
Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/09/2010 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
* cfg.mk (sc_preprocessor_indentation): New syntax-check rule.
I don't see 1/2 in the archives yet; perhaps it was held up by
moderation, because it is big? (400k)
That was it. I approved it.
At any rate, I've pushed it to my
Eric Blake wrote:
This has no mercy if cppi is not installed. Should I rework
it to give a nicer warning in that case, especially since
cppi is not in FC12?
Please make it print a warning when cppi is not available,
so that people who run make syntax-check know when this check
is being
Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/09/2010 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
* cfg.mk (sc_preprocessor_indentation): New syntax-check rule.
I don't see 1/2 in the archives yet; perhaps it was held up by
moderation, because it is big? (400k)
At any rate, I've pushed it to my cloned repo, if that makes life
On 03/09/2010 01:48 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/09/2010 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
* cfg.mk (sc_preprocessor_indentation): New syntax-check rule.
I don't see 1/2 in the archives yet; perhaps it was held up by
moderation, because it is big? (400k)
At any rate, I've
Chris Lalancette wrote:
...
commit 4d3b7e06bc8e2e76584da369406df0909c63f2d4
Author: Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Mar 9 09:33:48 2010 -0700
build: consistently indent preprocessor directives
* global: patch created by running:
for f in $(git ls-files '*.[ch]') ; do
On 03/09/2010 12:43 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
I'll go ahead and push this if no one speaks up soon.
Rather than downloading and applying the patch, I ran the command
and committed as you.
By this, you mean patch 1/2, correct? I just want to make sure
Yes. The one induced by the for loop
