Re: [PATCH 366] Libtoolize now advises AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR use where appropriate.

2008-04-23 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:02AM CEST: On 22 Apr 2008, at 15:27, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: I'm wondering a bit whether we should recommend putting ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I MACRO-DIR in the toplevel Makefile.am. Agreed. I'll add that before I push. It seems

Re: [libtool 2.2.2] testsuite: ... 38 ... 56 ... failed

2008-04-23 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Michael, * Michael Haubenwallner wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:46:32AM CEST: On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:24 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Michael Haubenwallner wrote on Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 04:22:03PM CEST: [lt-2.2.2-testsuite-usrlocal.patch] proposed patch to change any default

Re: [PATCH 366] Libtoolize now advises AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR use where appropriate.

2008-04-23 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Ralf, On 23 Apr 2008, at 17:26, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:02AM CEST: On 22 Apr 2008, at 15:27, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: I'm wondering a bit whether we should recommend putting ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I MACRO-DIR in the toplevel Makefile.am.

Re: Libtool performance status (part 1.2965)

2008-04-23 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: libtool 1.5.26: real 4:53.877 user 3:26.912 sys 1:25.275 libtool 1.2965 2008-04-22 (bash) real 4:03.745 user 3:19.232 sys41.018 Bob, thank you for testing and giving us these numbers. This improvement is almost entirely due to Ralf,

Re: Libtool performance status (part 1.2965)

2008-04-23 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: This improvement is almost entirely due to Ralf, so I encourage everyone who is subscribed to this list to seek him out and buy him many beers. Please take care not to buy Ralf too many beers at once since then his productivity may decrease. Spread

Re: move to git

2008-04-23 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:53:23AM CEST: I'm beginning to think that our time might be better spent investigating an alternate conversion method: cvs2git. Unfortunately, I might not have time for that right away. Are there known deficiencies of git cvsimport? (I

Re: move to git

2008-04-23 Thread Jim Meyering
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:53:23AM CEST: I'm beginning to think that our time might be better spent investigating an alternate conversion method: cvs2git. Unfortunately, I might not have time for that right away. Are there known

Re: move to git

2008-04-23 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I gave up on git-cvsimport a while ago, since it was so slow compared to parsecvs, but mainly because it would actually *reverse* revisions some time. E.g., it would sometimes put CVS version 1.2 before 1.1. That's a cvsps problem, not specific to git