I'm seeing this failure in test yaccdry.test at the Hydra continuous
build system for automake:
http://hydra.nixos.org/build/745050/log
FAIL: yaccdry.test (exit: 2)
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET:
Fix and document rules to not touch the tree with `make -n'.
* doc/automake.texi (Multiple Outputs): Document the problem of
modifications during dry-run execution, propose solution.
* NEWS: Update.
*
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:23:30PM CET:
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET:
Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch
Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ...
On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
diff --git a/automake.in b/automake.in
index cb5fe24..42eff2b 100644
--- a/automake.in
+++ b/automake.in
@@ -6070,11 +6070,11 @@ sub lang_vala_finish_target ($$)
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET:
Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ...
- $output_rules .= \$(srcdir)/$headerfile:
\$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n.
- \...@if test -f \$@; then :; else \\\n.
- \t rm
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET:
Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ...
- $output_rules .= \$(srcdir)/$headerfile:
\$(srcdir)/${derived}_vala.stamp\n.
-
Hello Ralf.
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:52:57PM CET:
Hi Ralf, I've just spotted a bug in the patch ...
- $output_rules .=
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET:
Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases...
Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch
(just in case that wasn't clear).
That said, I'll reply to your comments inline.
On Monday 01
On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:30:34PM CET:
On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n':
1) The solutions documented in
On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET:
Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases...
Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch
(just in case that wasn't clear).
I didn't
On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:08PM CET:
On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET:
Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t.
Hi Ralf. Thanks for these fixes, I really think that make -n should
really be dry-run if possible.
On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n':
1) The solutions documented in the `Multiple Outputs' node are not safe
Hello Ralf. Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases...
On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET:
3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and
Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstances,
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:18:55PM CET:
3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and
Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstances, too.
[...]
I'm not sure how useful it is to fix (3). It is not easy as a user to
get GNU make to not update any of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
