Hello Philipp, BTW, you sent mail to RalfWildenhues at suse.de. This mail address does not belong to me, if it even exists.
* Philipp Thomas wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:48:20PM CEST: > * Ralf Wildenhues ([email protected]) [20090429 21:02]: > > > That "just" is an interesting statement. I had to create an account > > with Novell, then had to click through more pages. > > Sorry, I shoulkd have warned you, but it's so familiar to me I forgetr the > initial hassles. No worries. I just thought I'd mention it. > > The specific failure I found was due to /bin/sh being a ksh variant, > > and fixed with this post-1.10.2 patch. > > Well, if you can call bash 4.x a ksh variant ... :) Are you really hundred percent positively sure that the shell on the build system in question was bash, not some ksh? Because I cannot reproduce a failure with check10.test either with bash 4.0.10. > > > > Second, do you have a testcase that shows what the require_file_internal > > > > patch is required for? > > > > > > See https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=64822 > > > > Even with an account, I am not allowed to see this. Wonder what kind of > > policy is behind that. > > I didn't see that the bug had been marked 'open to SUSE Enterprise > customers' as is the default for bugs found in our enterprise products. I've > put you in CC of that bug so you should now be able to access it. Well, thanks, but this isn't supposed to be a private one-man show. More to the point, I would prefer to keep all maintenance matters on publicly archived lists and bug trackers if possible; that way, another person can pick up where one stops. It's enough that some issues warrant private communication, there shouldn't be any more than necessary. > > Can you please send a full bug report containing all necessary > > information from above PR to bug-automake, including a reproducible test > > case, in a separate thread? Thanks. > > I haven't before created a test case for automake but I'll try. I'll reply to the one you sent, separately. Thanks! Ralf
