My patches

2001-03-22 Thread Akim Demaille


Hi Tom,

Good to see you again :)

Right now I don't have enough time to apply my patches, I will
probably do tomorrow Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday, but I will try to
catch up as soon as possible.

I would like to emphasize that there is a chunk of patches which
should be applied altogether if we don't want to leave a broken
Automake in the repo.  As said in the messages corresponding to these
patches (most importantly those related to the revamping of the
handling of variables/macros), the result is quite neat, but the way
to this result was delicate, and I needed several steps to keep
the patches reasonably small.  But some of the steps leave a broken
Automake.

The Automake I have at home fails three tests.  IIRC:

- subcond2
  because it is sensitive to the *indentation* in Makefile, hence it
  is not a semantic failure, purely syntactic.  I'll fix this once
  I know what you preference is (is it Makefile.in or Makefile which
  should fit within 80 cols).

- objc
  because I tend to think there is no reason not to use the OBJC
  linker in the test.  But the converse attitude would be valid too,
  as was explained.  It's a matter of choice.

- 
  I don't remember which one.   Hm... Yes:

- ?
  I don't remember the name, but it's compiling both C and C++ code,
  which results in loading twice `[FPFX=CXX]depend2.test', which
  results in *two* definitions of CXXDEPMODE, which my revamping of
  variables now rejects.  The question is whether this double
  definition is really meant (shouldn't one of the CXX be C?).

I left these failures on purpose, but once decisions made, it's easy
to solve.



I have a question: what is the version of Perl we can require.  There
are feature implemented in 5.6 that I would like to use, but is it
acceptable?  More specifically I'm using Class::Struct which was
significantly improved since 5.005, but its only requirement is:

use 5.005_64;

so we can use it with Perl 5.5, provided that we distribute it
(Hm... is it valid wrt licenses?).  Requiring 5.6 is simpler though.
But if unacceptable, what would you say of using 5.6's Class::Struct?




Re: Default postscript cleans miss *.cps *.fns.

2001-03-22 Thread Derek R. Price

Akim Demaille wrote:

 | Akim Demaille wrote:
 |
 |  Could you `grep indexcode' your texi sources?  Thanks!
 |
 | [dprice@empress doc]$ fgrep indexcode cvs.texinfo
 | [dprice@empress doc]$

 Actually I meant _all_ your sources.  And in fact, @include would be
 useful too.

Sorry for the delay in response.  I'm just catching up on this list and
the cc went to the account I'm not using anymore.


 [dprice@empress doc]$ ls *.t*x*
 CVSvn.texi  CVSvn.texi.in  cvs.texinfo  cvsclient.texi
 texinfo.tex
 [dprice@empress doc]$ egrep 'indexcode|@include' *.t*x*
 cvsclient.texi:@include CVSvn.texi
 cvs.texinfo:@include CVSvn.texi
 texinfo.tex:% @include fileinsert text of that file as
 input.
 texinfo.tex:  % Read the included file in a group so nested
 @include's work.
 texinfo.tex:% they're defined in; @include reads the file
 inside a group.
 [dprice@empress doc]$

I wasn't sure whether you wanted texinfo.tex included and there wasn't
much output, so I left it in.

FYI:  the *.cps  *.fns files are only being created for cvs.texinfo.

Derek

--
Derek Price  CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
Where are we going?  And what's with this handbasket?







Conditionals in CVS Automake

2001-03-22 Thread Robert Boehne

Hello all!

I've found a problem with conditional compilation in the
CVS version of Automake that was introduced some time since
March 4.  Multi-language-branch libtool fails 16 test cases
because the Makefile lacks the rules that it needs,
to build a target, they are commented out.

Could someone point me to the file(s) that could
be the culprit(s)?  I've not been able to track
this down as I'm not that familiar with the
entrails of Automake.

Thanks,

Rob

-- 
Robert Boehne Software Engineer
Ricardo Software   Chicago Technical Center
TEL: (630)789-0003 x. 238
FAX: (630)789-0127
email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]