On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
I should at this point decide whether just devote my Automake time
to mainline Automake (which amounts at letting Automake-NG die,
basically) or to Automake-NG (after tying some loose ends in the
mainline
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
I should at this point decide whether just devote my Automake time
to mainline Automake (which amounts at letting Automake-NG die,
basically) or to Automake-NG (after tying some loose ends in the
mainline
On 02/02/2013 07:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Git surely makes it easy to promote a branch to a new top-level repository.
Having it available by default in a repository would be easier to grasp
for git-challenged people like me.
Other people
Hi Akim.
On 02/02/2013 08:24 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com a
écrit :
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
we just let the project die?
On 02/01/2013 08:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[SNIP]
Which makes me think that forcing users to bootstrap the project from a
Git branch hidden in Automake's repository in order to use it might be
hampering their willingness to give it a try.
Hi Peter, Eric, thanks for the feedback and the support.
On 02/02/2013 01:51 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to
On 02/02/2013 01:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have been
made here. I would definitely use it once there is a release
(I have already been criticized several times for having used
then-CVS versions of the Autotools in Bison, and I don't
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Git surely makes it easy to promote a branch to a new top-level repository.
Having it available by default in a repository would be easier to grasp
for git-challenged people like me.
Other people have spoken against the need of such a split though.
Hi Akim.
On 02/02/2013 08:24 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com a
écrit :
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
we just let the project die?
On 02/01/2013 08:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[SNIP]
Which makes me think that forcing users to bootstrap the project from a
Git branch hidden in Automake's repository in order to use it might be
hampering their willingness to give it a try.
On 02/01/2013 09:47 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
() Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
() Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0100
A first step would certainly be making it a separate project on
Savannah, rather than just a glorified branch in the Automake Git
repository (plus a
Hi Peter, Eric, thanks for the feedback and the support.
On 02/02/2013 01:51 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to
On 02/02/2013 01:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have been
made here. I would definitely use it once there is a release
(I have already been criticized several times for having used
then-CVS versions of the Autotools in Bison, and I don't
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Git surely makes it easy to promote a branch to a new top-level repository.
Having it available by default in a repository would be easier to grasp
for git-challenged people like me.
Other people have spoken against the need of such a split though.
[+cc automake-ng]
On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi!
From NEWS in the master branch:
- Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
$(AM_CPPFLAGS).
Why is this removal important? It forces changes
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term. Probably not a
good move, for any of those projects.
On 02/01/2013 07:18 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term.
Hi Russ, thanks for the feedback.
On 02/01/2013 07:38 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should we just
let the project die?
I'm
() Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
() Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0100
A first step would certainly be making it a separate project on
Savannah, rather than just a glorified branch in the Automake Git
repository (plus a dedicated mailing list). Anyone has experience
or
Hi Stefano,
On 2013-02-01 10:35, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
From NEWS in the master branch:
- Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
$(AM_CPPFLAGS).
Why is this
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
And in fact, I just expressed how I think removing support for
INCLUDES is wrong, for *both* projects!
I agree that removing it from automake is counterproductive. But I
support removing it from Automake-NG - as long as we are moving to a
newer
On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to concede; so while I
agree with the decision to deprecate (but not remove) INCLUDES from
automake, I
Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com a
écrit :
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
we just let the project die?
I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have
Hi!
From NEWS in the master branch:
- Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
$(AM_CPPFLAGS).
Why is this removal important? It forces changes to a hundred
(or so) Makefiles in *one* project I'm involved with.
[+cc automake-ng]
On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi!
From NEWS in the master branch:
- Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
$(AM_CPPFLAGS).
Why is this removal important? It forces changes
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should we just
let the project die?
I'm not personally using it or playing with it yet, but I like the idea of
rethinking
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term. Probably not a
good move, for any of those projects.
On 02/01/2013 07:18 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term.
Hi Russ, thanks for the feedback.
On 02/01/2013 07:38 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should we just
let the project die?
I'm
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'm happy to read this :-)
You should be happy that a number of us have been interested in
Automake-NG enough to remain subscribed to its mailing list and
provide comments on directions and ideas. Being on the mailing list
requires a level of
() Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
() Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0100
A first step would certainly be making it a separate project on
Savannah, rather than just a glorified branch in the Automake Git
repository (plus a dedicated mailing list). Anyone has experience
or
Hi Stefano,
On 2013-02-01 10:35, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
From NEWS in the master branch:
- Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
$(AM_CPPFLAGS).
Why is this
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
And in fact, I just expressed how I think removing support for
INCLUDES is wrong, for *both* projects!
I agree that removing it from automake is counterproductive. But I
support removing it from Automake-NG - as long as we are moving to a
newer
On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to concede; so while I
agree with the decision to deprecate (but not remove) INCLUDES from
automake, I
Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com a
écrit :
So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
we just let the project die?
I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have
35 matches
Mail list logo
