On Saturday 18 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Wednesday 15 June 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
[CUT]
Here is the amended patch. Note that in the end I haven't made use of
the version information I've asked Eric previously, since adding it would
have broken the flow of discourse IMHO.
On 06/15/2011 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:33:39PM CEST:
I would suggest to at least discourage using this in the documentation.
... I agree, and I will make the change soon. Maybe I
Hi Eric.
On Wednesday 15 June 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 02:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/15/2011 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:33:39PM CEST:
I would suggest to at
On 06/15/2011 11:16 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hi Eric.
As for a valid use of AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS, the m4 package
normally configures --without-changeword, but it is useful to have 'make
distcheck' exercise the --with-changeword option to ensure that the code
still compiles for
On 06/15/2011 11:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is useful in situations when a plain
./configure is not meaningful to a source tree, i.e. when a
source-tree mandatorily requires some configuration argument.
Such a source-tree is violating GNU Coding Standards.
a)
On Wednesday 15 June 2011, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/15/2011 07:57 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 11:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is useful in situations when a plain
./configure is not meaningful to a source tree, i.e. when a
source-tree mandatorily
On 06/15/2011 07:57 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 11:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is useful in situations when a plain
./configure is not meaningful to a source tree, i.e. when a
source-tree mandatorily requires some configuration argument.
Such a source-tree is
On 06/15/2011 11:56 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Wednesday 15 June 2011, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In other words: IMO, automake is right in encouraging users to avod
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS,
Actually, automake will discourage the use of AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS
*by developers*, not of
On Friday 10 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8784
On Thursday 02 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
Hello automakers.
Continuing with the good trend of avoiding to impinge on the user
namespace, we
On Monday 13 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Friday 10 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8784
On Thursday 02 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
Hello automakers.
Continuing with the
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8784
On Thursday 02 June 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
Hello automakers.
Continuing with the good trend of avoiding to impinge on the user
namespace, we should start supporting AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS
in
11 matches
Mail list logo