Follow-up Comment #5, sr #110324 (project autoconf): Yes, minimized reproduction recipes for erroneous changes would be really helpful.
I can't promise autoupdate will ever get fixed, both because of a general lack of developer time, and because I'm not convinced it's _possible_ to fix some of these bugs short of a ground-up redesign built around an actual parser for both M4 and shell constructs. (See the long comment starting at https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/tree/bin/autoupdate.in#n420 for a bunch of backstory -- what we have now is the _fifth_ attempt to design an auto-updater, and it's still got these problems!) But right now all we have is anecdotes coupled to long diffs like the ones you and Bruno posted. Minimized reproduction recipes would let us think concretely about how the existing algorithm goes wrong and figure out what, if anything, can be done about it. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?110324> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
