* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:22:26PM CET: > On Tuesday 11 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > AUTOMAKE_fails -Wno-error --output-dir=foo > > > -$EGREP '(invalid|unrecognized) option.*--output-dir' stderr > > > +grep 'unrecognized option.*--output-dir' stderr > > > > This strikes me as wrong. Why would you have written the test like this > > in the first place if there wasn't a good reason for this? > > (And just the time required to think about this, track down the reason > > for the original choice, etc., wastes more than would have been gained > > by this patch IMVHO.) > > > > Maybe because Getopt::Long::GetOptions could throw a (differently > > spelled) error itself? > > > That's what I was suspecting myself when I wrote this hunk; so, instead > of risking some spurious failure in later on-field testing, I preferred > to be a bit lax in the grepping of the error message (after all, both > "invalid option" and "unrecognized option" are good and clear messages). > > But then I saw that the similar tests aclocal.test and automake.test > are stricter in their grepping of error messages, and no failure has > been reported against them as of today -- so I realized that such a > laxness was uncalled for. And being more consistent wouldn't hurt, > either. > > And this patch was borne.
You must mean "born" (borne means something different) here. > Does this explanation clarifies things? Yes: it clarifies that you still have too much time on your hands to spend on really unimportant stuff, thereby delaying more useful work. ;-> Thanks, Ralf
