On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:30:49 +0200 (CEST) Felix <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Mario Domenech Goulart <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [[email protected]: Re: 4.8.0 release?] > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:12:35 -0400 > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Felix >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Mario Domenech Goulart <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [[email protected]: Re: 4.8.0 release?] >>> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:46:37 -0400 >>> >>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:03:40 -0400 John Cowan <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit: >>>>> >>>>>> # for cygwin >>>>>> -test -f ../cygchicken-0.dll && cp ../cygchicken-0.dll . >>>>>> +if test -f ../cygchicken-0.dll; then >>>>>> + cp ../cygchicken-0.dll . >>>>>> + cp ../cygchicken-0.dll reverser/tags/1.0 >>>>>> +fi >>>>>> +mv ../cygchicken-0.dll ../cygchicken-0.dll_ >>>>> >>>>> All these copies and moves, including the last, need to be inside the >>>>> scope of the "if test -f", or it's not idempotent. >>>> >>>> Indeed, John. Thanks for noticing that. Attached is an updated version >>>> of the patch. >>>> >>>> I tested it on master, and I could "make ... spotless install check" >>>> successfully. >>> >>> Does that mean the deployment test succeeded? >> >> Yes. > > Excellent. Shall I sign it off and apply it to master? It seems to work for me. It would be nice if we could get at least one more successful case. :-) But if you are in a hurry, just push it (it can always be reverted anyway). As far as I can see, it doesn't break things. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
