David A. Wheeler (2019/10/23 12:18 -0400):
> I just did a quick check with "autoreconf -i" in version 2.69.
> Sadly it does NOT warn about either AC_INIT or AC_OUTPUT missing.
Just for the reocrd there is the --warnings=all option. It does not warn
either but IMO it could/should and that's the
> David A. Wheeler (2019/10/07 12:29 -0400):
> > Here's a list of some style recommendations I made for autotools use:
> > https://dwheeler.com/autotools/#style
> > I think a number of them could be implemented by a linter.
> > You could also warn about a missing AC_INIT and AC_OUTPUT,
> >
David A. Wheeler (2019/10/07 12:29 -0400):
> Here's a list of some style recommendations I made for autotools use:
>
> https://dwheeler.com/autotools/#style
>
> I think a number of them could be implemented by a linter.
> You could also warn about a missing AC_INIT and AC_OUTPUT,
> although I
Here's a list of some style recommendations I made for autotools use:
https://dwheeler.com/autotools/#style
I think a number of them could be implemented by a linter.
You could also warn about a missing AC_INIT and AC_OUTPUT,
although I suspect such problems are rare in practice.
--- David A.
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Richard Ash wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:06:18 -0500 (CDT)
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Many existing common tests found in Autoconf scripts can just be
removed since standards have made them unnecessary.
At the risk of being contrary, this is one of the things which a
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:06:18 -0500 (CDT)
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> Many existing common tests found in Autoconf scripts can just be
> removed since standards have made them unnecessary.
At the risk of being contrary, this is one of the things which a
"linter" for autotools should be able to
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Gabriel Lisaca wrote:
> > Sorry, I may have made my question unclear. What I meant by a "lint" tool
> > for autoconf (and the autotools in general) is to check rather trivial
> > things like syntax and arguments to macros to conform to what the
> > documentation
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, Warren Young wrote:
That’s not reality, though we are approaching it slowly. “Real”
Unix is all but dead now, the Linuxes are converging on a few major
types, and the fragmentation in the BSDs seems to have reached a
practical limit. Alternatives like macOS and Windows
On Oct 2, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Gabriel Lisaca wrote:
>
> Sorry, I may have made my question unclear. What I meant by a "lint" tool for
> autoconf (and the autotools in general) is to check rather trivial things
> like syntax and arguments to macros to conform to what the documentation
> intends
On Oct 2, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Gabriel Lisaca wrote:
>
> wondering if there are any lint tools available for checking the
> "correctness" of a project's configure.ac file as well as its Makefile.am file
I don’t think it’s a practical possibility, since it would amount to “Emulate
the build
Hello,
I'm a new user to the autotools, and am wondering if there are any lint
tools available for checking the "correctness" of a project's
configure.ac file as well as its Makefile.am file--with regard to its
conformance to best practices. I have checked the archives of this
mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
