On 11 Dec 2021 15:42, Karl Berry wrote:
> i tend to agree with this sentiment that the macro doesn't really fit
> with automake's mission. and more importantly, i think the ecosystem
> has grown significantly since the macro was first added back in 1996.
>
> I also agree, but I still
Mike,
i tend to agree with this sentiment that the macro doesn't really fit
with automake's mission. and more importantly, i think the ecosystem
has grown significantly since the macro was first added back in 1996.
I also agree, but I still wouldn't want to delete the macro and thus
Hi folks,
hope you don't mind an outsider (occasional Autotools user) joining the
discussion with some trivia.
On 12/11/21 22:52, Karl Berry wrote:
Hi Mike, Peter,
> or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work,
I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for
it probably comes down to being a bit clearer on what autotools'
goals are and what it considers reasonable prerequisites.
I'd find it hard to define precisely. As a general rule, I wouldn't want
to lose support for any system that is working now, until we can be
really sure that it is no
Hi Mike, Peter,
> or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work,
I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for cosmetic
purposes.
test -z "$(VAR)" || rm -f $(VAR)
does not actually seem "awful" to me. And I fail to see any significant
gain by simplifying it.
Hi Mike,
On 11/12/21 15:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 11 Dec 2021 09:33, Peter Johansson wrote:
On 10/12/21 15:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
if it's dropped, i'm not sure how users are supposed to fix things.
the error message says to install GNU coreutils, but if GNU coreutils
uses automake and
