[Automake-NG] [PATCH 1/3] var: add VAR_COMPUTED source

2012-08-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
We want AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS in Makefile.in to be the combination of configure.ac and Makefile.am options. Define a new variable owner for this, because we need to override the Makefile.am value unconditionally and never emit warnings. * lib/Automake/VarDef.pm (VAR_COMPUTED): New. (dump): Print it.

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 0/3] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/22/2012 11:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Hi Stefano, Hi Paolo, and thanks for the patches. these patches add back support for obsolete dist-* options, by parsing the AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS variable and distilling AM_DIST_FORMATS out of it. The first two patches are required for this. They

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 2/2] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 22/08/2012 13:47, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: Hi Paolo. Since I still have some gripes with the preparatory [PATCH 1/2], I'm thinking about reworking this patch to make is independent from that. Find my ideas below. Do you think they would be a good move? If yes, would you mind

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 2/2] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/22/2012 01:53 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Il 22/08/2012 13:47, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: Hi Paolo. Since I still have some gripes with the preparatory [PATCH 1/2], I'm thinking about reworking this patch to make is independent from that. Find my ideas below. Do you think they would

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 1/2] var: format all options in the Makefile.in output

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Paolo. After reading this patch carefully, I realize the issue is more complicated and tricky than it appeared at first. To avoid getting stuck here, I think we should re-work your other patch to be independent from this one (it can be done quite easily, see my reply to that patch). Once

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 2/2] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/22/2012 02:07 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Il 22/08/2012 14:03, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: I'm a bit confused as to where to draw the line between Automake and GNU make... It depends. A rule of thumb is that, when Automake *must* process something at automake runtime (as is certainly

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 2/2] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/22/2012 02:32 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Il 22/08/2012 14:23, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: True, but in the make dist case, automake has otherwise no business in parsing the dist-format options. But IMHO it makes sense to keep the need/ability to recognize those options segregated in

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH v2 2/2] dist: add back support for obsolete dist-* options

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/22/2012 02:43 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Il 22/08/2012 14:41, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: It is a bit ugly that _process_option_list has to know about the no-dist-gzip option in order to give a warning. This way, I can give a superior error message if somebody specifies no-dist-xz.

[Automake-NG] [PATCH] {master} compile: remove support for $(INCLUDES) (was: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG)

2012-08-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
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

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] {master} compile: remove support for $(INCLUDES) (was: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG)

2012-08-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
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

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] {master} compile: remove support for $(INCLUDES) (was: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG)

2012-08-22 Thread Andrew W. Nosenko
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

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] {master} compile: remove support for $(INCLUDES)

2012-08-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 22/08/2012 23:52, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: I'd much rather a mandatory noisy warning period before a feature is completely removed. This would require a new category of warnings that are are unconditionally show, regardless of strictness or any -Wnone option. As usual, patches

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH] {master} compile: remove support for $(INCLUDES)

2012-08-22 Thread Eric Blake
On 08/22/2012 03:52 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: OTOH, I believe developers working on older systems should be ready to install more recent developer tools once in a while. You can't truly expect not to update your Automake installation for 3, 4 years! Oh, _I_ fully wish that RHEL 5 would at