signal handling (was: prepare Automake's test suite for parallelization)

2007-11-12 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:13:45AM CET: BTW, there is one thing about the Automake test suite that has been bothering me for a long time: you often cannot interrupt it with ^C. I usually keep it pressed until one of the repeated interrupts finally kills the testing.

[SCM] GNU Automake branch, branch-1-10, updated. Release-1-10-44-gf3a0c47

2007-11-12 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project GNU Automake. http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=automake.git;a=commitdiff;h=f3a0c4732aff326ce5e914f9301e7c861a262f41 The branch, branch-1-10

[SCM] GNU Automake branch, master, updated. Release-1-10-66-g83df77e

2007-11-12 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project GNU Automake. http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=automake.git;a=commitdiff;h=83df77e58dbce5bb38f0b70ecd3cab7fdfda4d00 The branch, master has

[PATCH] Fix maintainer-check failure.

2007-11-12 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* tests/color.test: unset TESTS, use `make -e' rather than `make MACRO=val'. --- Applied to master. tests/color.test | 10 ++ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/color.test b/tests/color.test index b7ba486..d30d1e0 100755 --- a/tests/color.test +++

Re: autoconf version control announcements

2007-11-12 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:23:36PM CET: Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow this got turned off again for Automake, as Benoit noted. Any chance you could look into it? It looks like it's going to the right place:

Re: signal handling

2007-11-12 Thread Bob Proulx
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Ahh. More head scratching. I'd appreciate if somebody could look over these two proposed patches to see if what I think how signals ought to work makes sense. This one I think is the opposite of what it needs to be. +trap '' $signal I think that should be trap -

Re: failure in colorful tests

2007-11-12 Thread Bob Proulx
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: +case $TERM in +dumb) exit 77;; +esac ... Thanks! Do we need to guard against other TERM settings, too? Hmm... I was thinking more along the lines of this patch instead. I don't think the test should be skipped. I think it should be made independent of the invoking