* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:17:05PM CET:
I'm rebasing one of my patch series for Automake, written still in
2009, and I find it quite annoying (and error-prone) to have to
re-edit otherwise fine git commits just to update the copyright years
of the files changed in
At Friday 29 January 2010, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de
wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:17:05PM CET:
I'm rebasing one of my patch series for Automake, written still
in 2009, and I find it quite annoying (and error-prone) to have
to re-edit otherwise
Hello automakers.
In this thread, I'll post an amended/updated version of a previous
patch series of mine, which introduced a maintainer-specific check
about the consistency of the list of tests in the Automake testsuite.
The previous patch series has been already partially applied, so
I found
This patch add a new maintainer-specific check:
`maintainer-check-list-of-tests'.
This check verifies that the tests listed in $(TESTS) correspond to the
test scripts on the filesystem, counting both the committed (e.g.
`aclibobj.test') and the generated (e.g. `check-p.test') scripts.
From
The previous patch introduced some code duplication. This patch takes
care of removing (part of) such duplication, by adding a new *.am
makefile fragment to be included by the relevant Makefiles.am
From 6dc1a373b889e484d979ce7a1107ec9a26a2ee0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefano Lattarini
The first patch of this series introduced some code duplication, which
was partly removed by the second patch. This final third patch takes
care of removing the part of such duplication which wasn't removed by
that second patch.
From ac98f437c4efa93eaf329597af8284b56d9c2b39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real warnings and problems.
Jocke
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
What for?
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
What for?
I just said that below.
On 01/29/2010 09:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
is useful, automake already supports silent compilation. I know that
I have missed errors or warnings beause having had to much output to
read, Joakim, would you like to work on a patch for this? I think it
would be immensly
On 01/29/2010 11:17 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
is useful,
Where? So far, I have only experienced the contrary.
automake already supports silent compilation.
Yes, some automake maintainers share your opinion. I believe
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote on 2010/01/29 10:05:04:
On 01/29/2010 09:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote on 2010/01/29 11:17:24:
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
is useful, automake already supports silent compilation. I know that
Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
learn suppress the install
Daniel Pocock wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Daniel,
* Daniel Pocock wrote on Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:21:24PM CET:
We have been working on getting the Ganglia tarball to work out of
the box for AIX
When Michael does `make install', the *.so files for our modules
are not
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose
output is useful, automake already supports silent compilation.
I know that
Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
learn suppress the install mgs as well as other libtool msgs such
as
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote on 2010/01/29 11:59:51:
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose
output is useful, automake already supports silent compilation.
I know that
Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
learn
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines []
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Could you please explain that?
Here, most either use make from vim/emacs and use $EDITOR as error
Hi,
here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using
make tags, tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are
generated. In case of own functions this is great (you jump to the
implemenations when analysing code) but in other cases it is not and
someone may want to
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines []
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Could you please explain that?
Example: Compling a
On 01/29/2010 03:42 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de
wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines []
typically do not show up as
On 22/01/10 13:17, Jim Meyering wrote:
[Cc'd autoconf for a suggestion below]
Pádraig Brady wrote:
+ @grep -Ei '^#define.*(yes|no|true|false)$$' lib/config.h \
+ { echo 'Please use 0 or 1 for macro values' 12; exit 1; }
+
I like it.
However, it'd sure be nice to use
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Example: Compling a package under linux
The system that you are refering to as `Linux' is really called GNU
and was started by the GNU projet in 1984, many people don't know the
GNU project and what it does. You can help us spread that knowledge
I was refering to AM_SILENT_RULES, which supresses `make all'
output; so this is not a very controversial topic, it is already
in automake and used by several projects. Would you like to work
on this feature? The maintainers can't accept a patch that
doesn't exist after
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
Wow. Pointless trying to add anything to discussion whether things are
good or evil.
But note this comment in depend2.am:
## Verbosity of FASTDEP rules
## --
## (1) Some
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
Could you please explain that?
Example: Compling a package under linux
configure --prefix=/usr
...
gcc -DCONFDIR=/foo/bar -DIRIX ...
Using silent make rules you
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows?
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
SCNR :)
oki,
Steffen
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
I don't know where to start even and considering that silent builds
seems to be a very controversial subject within the autotools
maintainers , I think this needs to come from the maintainers themselves
to have any chance to be accepted.
On 1/29/2010 10:17 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows?
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
SCNR :)
Okay - I can't help it! I
Hello Steffen,
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:10:16PM CET:
here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using
make tags, tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are
generated. In case of own functions this is great (you jump to the
Hello,
* Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:05:07AM CET:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should
31 matches
Mail list logo
