* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:08:18AM CEST: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 9/8/2009 12:44 PM: > > * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:50:39PM CEST: > >> On 09/08/2009 07:05 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>> The patch is a bit of a hack, as it would be cleaner to put this right > >>> into XFile.pm. However, that would require us to either fork from the > >>> Automake copy of the file, or also integrate this there. WDYT? > >> Why not? (not a rhetoric question). > > > > Why not *what*? Why not fork the file? Why not apply this patch as-is? > > Why not integrate this change in Automake? A wee bit of redundancy can > > sometimes help get over the noisy channel that is non-native language. > > The patch itself looked okay; and since automake is not currently using > flock, I guess I'm okay with forking for now. Go ahead and apply it.
The patch doesn't constitute a fork from Automake. It merely puts the test in a file maintained by Autoconf, rather than where it would rightly belong: in XFile.pm, maintained by Automake. Pushed now; thanks. Cheers, Ralf
