On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
I'll just remove support for it in Automake 1.13. See the patch
below.
OK?
Regards,
Stefano
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
I'll just remove
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this
On 08/21/2012 07:14 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest converting suffix
rules to pattern rules
Yep, I will amend NG-NEWS to suggest that.
Done with the patch below. I will push shortly.
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
I'll just remove support for it in Automake 1.13. See the patch
below.
OK?
Regards,
Stefano
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
I'll just remove
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
Turns out this
On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 12:10, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
(AC_SUBST): Define AM_VARTYPOS_WHITELIST to LIBFFI_EXECUTABLE_LDFLAGS
RELOC_LDFLAGS. This is required because Automake-NG is stricter than
mainline Automake in its make runtime checks on possible
Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next
version of Automake, it is the Next Generation: it's not meant to
be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede Automake,
because the two projects have different
Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
with very, very similar design and API; and that a transition between
the two won't be seamless --
On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have
made sense would have been a mapping like
Yes that would have helped _a lot_.
Another thing that would have helped would have been out-of-the-box
support for multiple installed
On 08/21/2012 05:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
with very, very similar design and API; and that a
On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
hope the answer is yes, of course).
From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of
which are good things!
And I've done that already
On 21/08/2012 09:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In Fedora we already are pushing around package maintainers to pass
appropriate options to configure to revert this change, because silent
make rules are non-suitable for building distros in batch jobs.
The same is true for Gentoo.
In other words,
On 08/21/2012 06:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of
which
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
* Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
* Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
And another question:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Maybe we just need good PR and advertisment in this. The python
developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the breakage,
and have been for a long time. We might
On 08/21/2012 07:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Maybe we just need good PR and advertisment in this. The python
developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
transition to Automake-NG, sorry.
* warn for treating _SOURCES entries
On 08/21/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
transition to Automake-NG,
Il 21/08/2012 20:58, Bob Friesenhahn ha scritto:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
harm to the free software world
Which harm are
On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 12:10, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
(AC_SUBST): Define AM_VARTYPOS_WHITELIST to LIBFFI_EXECUTABLE_LDFLAGS
RELOC_LDFLAGS. This is required because Automake-NG is stricter than
mainline Automake in its make runtime checks on possible
Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next
version of Automake, it is the Next Generation: it's not meant to
be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede Automake,
because the two projects have different
On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next
version of Automake, it is the Next Generation: it's not meant to
be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede
On 21/08/2012 07:32, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
hope the answer is yes, of course).
From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using
autoconf-2.1
Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
with very, very similar design and API; and that a transition between
the two won't be seamless --
Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
hope the answer is yes, of course).
From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using
On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have
made sense would have been a mapping like
Yes that would have helped _a lot_.
Another thing that would have helped would have been out-of-the-box
support for multiple installed
On 08/21/2012 05:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
with very, very similar design and API; and that a
On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
hope the answer is yes, of course).
From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have
Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone
not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x
branch),
bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf has already been successfully converted:
On 08/21/2012 05:09 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have
made sense would have been a mapping like
Yes that would have helped _a lot_.
Another thing that would have helped would have
On 08/21/2012 05:49 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone
not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x
branch),
bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
* Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
* Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
And another question:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest converting suffix rules to
pattern rules so that the
Il 21/08/2012 18:01, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
* Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
* Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
And another question:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of
which are good things!
And I've done that already
Il 21/08/2012 18:30, Ralf Corsepius ha scritto:
Yes, that's correct. PR and advertisement is what lacked in the early
Autoconf 2.5x releases.
Really? That's not how I recall the situation. I recall people turning
away from autoconf in disgust because of the numerous incompatiblities
and
On 21/08/2012 09:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In Fedora we already are pushing around package maintainers to pass
appropriate options to configure to revert this change, because silent
make rules are non-suitable for building distros in batch jobs.
The same is true for Gentoo.
In other words,
On 08/21/2012 06:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of
which
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
* Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
* Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
And another question:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Maybe we just need good PR and advertisment in this. The python
developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the breakage,
and have been for a long time. We might
On 08/21/2012 07:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Maybe we just need good PR and advertisment in this. The python
developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the
On 08/21/2012 10:30 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
And I've done that already where possible and reasonable. For example,
the 'silent-rules' option is now active by default, and the tags-related
rules have been reworked and improved.
Well, from a distro maintainer's view this a bad idea.
Ralf,
On 21/08/2012 09:47, Eric Blake wrote:
The
'silent-rules' change in automake change did NOT make more builds
instantly silent, nor are we preventing you from your goal of noisy
builds for the Fedora buildbots.
That being the case I retire my note as well — although it seems like
most
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
transition to Automake-NG, sorry.
* warn for treating _SOURCES entries
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
harm to the free software world
Which harm are
On 08/21/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
transition to Automake-NG,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu writes:
On 21/08/2012 09:47, Eric Blake wrote:
The 'silent-rules' change in automake change did NOT make more builds
instantly silent, nor are we preventing you from your goal of noisy
builds for the Fedora buildbots.
That being the case I retire my
On 21/08/2012 13:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes, but I (speaking as another distro maintainer) think that's a problem
with the upstreams that do that, rather than a problem with Automake in
how it offers the functionality. The upstreams just require some
education around how distros use
Il 21/08/2012 20:58, Bob Friesenhahn ha scritto:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
harm to the free software world
Which harm are
54 matches
Mail list logo
