On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:39 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 9/10/20 11:48 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I’m wondering whether it would make
> > sense to merge this distributor’s patch to avoid supplying -Wcross to
> > automake -- perhaps generalized to arbitrary warning categories. What
> > do you thi
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:43 PM Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi Zack - in addition to the other replies, how do you prefer to do the
> sync? (which it seems like we might as well do asap.) From am to ac, or
> from ac to am?
We already sync quite a few Automake/*.pm files from am to ac, so I
think it makes
Hi Zack - in addition to the other replies, how do you prefer to do the
sync? (which it seems like we might as well do asap.) From am to ac, or
from ac to am?
I don't think it makes much difference, and am happy with either
direction. I admit I'm also not sure offhand how to integrate it with
"mak
On 9/10/20 11:48 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I’m wondering whether it would make
sense to merge this distributor’s patch to avoid supplying -Wcross to
automake -- perhaps generalized to arbitrary warning categories. What
do you think?
Yes, we can't assume that both packages are of the same vintag
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Clearly ChannelDefs.pm should be brought back into sync between the
two projects, but that will only fix the problem after *both* Autoconf
and Automake do a release. So I’m wondering whether it would make
sense to merge this distributor’s patch to avoid
autoreconf assumes that it can pass --warnings= to both
the tools maintained in Autoconf (autoconf, autoheader, etc.)
and to the tools maintained in Automake (automake, aclocal, etc.)
However, the set of warnings categories defined in autoconf’s
lib/Autom4te/ChannelDefs.pm has diverged from the set
