On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:39:47AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * tests/tools.at (autom4te preselections): Use `find -newer';
> > remove one of the sleeps.
>
> Thanks; please install.
Installed to Autoconf CVS, thank you.
Stepan
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * tests/tools.at (autom4te preselections): Use `find -newer';
> remove one of the sleeps.
Thanks; please install.
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:10:57PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:21:42PM CET:
> > The goal here is to avoid a tradition of tests that sleep. Sleeping
> > slows things down.
speaking about avoiding unnecessary sleep:
Earlier in this thread
* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:21:42PM CET:
>
> In the mean time, sleeping for 1 second should suffice.
Thank you. I applied the patch below, assuming we'll hear about
the significance of failures on bug-autoconf.
> The goal here is to avoid a tradition of tests that sleep. Sle
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even Linux
> supports FAT, although I doubt anyone is foolhardy enough to develop on
> FAT when there are so many better filesystems to choose from. But you
> need at least 'sleep 2' to guarantee distinct timestamps on FAT.
I don't think this is really a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 12/4/2006 11:11 PM:
> Quoting automake/configure.ac:
> # The amount we should wait after modifying files depends on the platform.
> # On Windows '95, '98 and ME, files modifications have 2-seconds
> # granularity and can
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:40:59AM CET:
> > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > +: ${sleep='sleep 2'} # Command to force different time stamps
> >
> > Why doesn't 'sleep 1' suffice? That '2' has me worried.
More information:
http://lists.gnu.org/archi
Hello Paul,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:40:59AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > +: ${sleep='sleep 2'} # Command to force different time stamps
>
> Why doesn't 'sleep 1' suffice? That '2' has me worried.
Quoting automake/Makefile.am:maintainer-c
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2006-12-04 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * tests/tools.at (autom4te preselections): New test, to flag
> entries missing from autom4te.cfg.
> Report by David Byron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
This looks reasonable, but...
> +: $
Continuing:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-09/msg00038.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-10/msg00042.html
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:21:50PM CEST:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RW> * te
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
RW> * tests/trace.test: New test for autom4te preselections.
RW> * tests/Makefile.am: Update.
I'd rather not have this test in Automake. If we add a new
trace to Automake today, fixing the test so it doesn't fail with
old CVS Autoc
Hello Ralf,
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:22:31PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stepan Kasal wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:26:34PM CEST:
> [sleep before the first aclocal call]
thank you that you kindly repeated the explanation for me.
I apologize that I was not able to see it in your previou
Hello Stepan,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:26:34PM CEST:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:50:48PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > Closer. We need to sleep before the first aclocal,
>
> I do not understand why, but I'm afraid it has something to do with
> your explanation how
Hello Ralf,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:50:48PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > +test -f $HOME/.autom4te.cfg && exit 77
>
> [...], but better be safer than sorry: this test does
> not need to be executed on many systems in order to be effective.
you are right, of course; thanks for explanatio
Hello Stepan,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:11:22PM CEST:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:16:06AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > [...], with Stepan's proposed additional patch
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-09/msg00023.html
> > I can't get the test to
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:16:06AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [...], with Stepan's proposed additional patch
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-09/msg00023.html
> I can't get the test to fail reliably any more: it only fails about half
> the time, even if I throw
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 07:52:11PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Definitely there should be a test for the bug. How about the one below?
>
> Looks good to me; please install. Thanks.
Thanks for the review. However, with Stepan's proposed additio
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Definitely there should be a test for the bug. How about the one below?
Looks good to me; please install. Thanks.
Hello Stepan,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 04:20:19PM CEST:
>
> So the fix is obvious: add the macro to the preselect list in
> autom4te. I installed autoconf-20060907-presel.patch (attached)
> to the Autoconf CVS.
Congratulations on fixing a three-year-old bug! :-)
> Well, if
19 matches
Mail list logo
