On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:08PM CET: > > On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET: > > > > Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases... > > > > > > Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch > > > (just in case that wasn't clear). > > > I didn't get that, sorry. Anyway, why you don't want to commit this second > > patch? > > Causes a slowdown without gain for the user. > > > While its usefulness is admittedly limited, being a little bit more > > correct (even if only theoretically) wouldn't hurt IMHO. > > But then there is no argument to not also fix the other configure.am > rules (which also have problems in even more obscure and hard-to-use > cases). I gave up trying to write exposers for them. OK, agreed. Fixing this would IMHO be very low priority anyway. (And to be honest, I've *never* expected `make -n' to really make a dry-run if the Makefile is out-of-date, so I *personally* don't even see this limitation as a problem -- which probably explains why I don't have strong feelings on this matter).
Regards, Stefano