Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/20/2010 07:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> I think that's fine, but since you are at it you should also check for >>> single quotes. >> >> Good point; patch for that coming up shortly. > > Hmm, in thinking about it, rejecting newline would also be useful, for > catching bad uses of m4_esyscmd t

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/20/2010 07:18 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/20/2010 01:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 07/20/2010 12:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> At this point, I'm thinking of using AS_LITERAL_HEREDOC_IF plus one >>> additional check for "; all other uses of AC_PACKAGE_STRING and friends >>> appeared to b

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/20/2010 01:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/20/2010 12:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> At this point, I'm thinking of using AS_LITERAL_HEREDOC_IF plus one >> additional check for "; all other uses of AC_PACKAGE_STRING and friends >> appeared to be inside "", so it's just a documentation matter

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/20/2010 12:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: At this point, I'm thinking of using AS_LITERAL_HEREDOC_IF plus one additional check for "; all other uses of AC_PACKAGE_STRING and friends appeared to be inside "", so it's just a documentation matter to mention that these strings should be double-quoted

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/19/2010 04:16 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > For that matter, we AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([PACKAGE_NAME], > ["$PACKAGE_NAME"], [...]), so users _can't_ have been using > double-quotes in a package name or version in the first place. For clarification - they can't have been using " in those strings, witho

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/11/2010 12:51 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I have a patch below that turns Eric's diff into a patch for PACKAGE and > VERSION. It really makes me cringe though: we ourselves break the > promise not to use PACKAGE and VERSION (nor BUG-REPORT btw.) outside of > here-douments: > ./configure -

autoreconf -W [was: AC_INIT regression]

On 07/11/2010 12:51 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > PS: to add to ugliness, Bruno's use case could easily be worked around > by `autoreconf -Wno-syntax', except of course older aclocal didn't > accept -W* flags so autoreconf doesn't pass it to them. Yes, autoreconf > should check and then pass, anoth

Re: AC_INIT regression

* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:54:54PM CEST: > On 07/11/10 00:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I think it's not too bad to _document_ the change and apply > > this patch for 2.68 or 2.69 if we get many complaints (which I doubt > > we'll get). > > That sounds reasonable to me as well.

Re: AC_INIT regression

* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:54:54PM CEST: > On 07/11/10 00:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I think it's not too bad to _document_ the change and apply > > this patch for 2.68 or 2.69 if we get many complaints (which I doubt > > we'll get). > > That sounds reasonable to me as well.

Re: AC_INIT regression

On 07/11/10 00:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > I think it's not too bad to _document_ the change and apply > this patch for 2.68 or 2.69 if we get many complaints (which I doubt > we'll get). That sounds reasonable to me as well. It's important to get 2.67 out fairly soon, since the "int *" bug is rel

Re: AC_INIT regression

> Well, in the sense that Eric's patch series before 2.66 was not intended > to stricten semantics, it is a regression.  In the sense of saving the > innocent user of common setups where PACKAGE and VERSION _are_ reused in > places outside Autoconf (e.g., Automake) or even just outside of here- > d

Re: AC_INIT regression

[ ] * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:24:31PM CEST: > On 07/10/2010 06:28 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >On 07/10/2010 08:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > >>It would still be nice to address Bruno's report about AC_

Re: AC_INIT regression [was: AC_CHECK_SIZEOF([int *]) is error in autoconf-2.66]

On 07/10/2010 06:28 PM, Eric Blake wrote: On 07/10/2010 08:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote: It would still be nice to address Bruno's report about AC_INIT and valid version strings first. Here's where I got before running out of time to actually test it with AC_INIT: Is it even clear that it is a bu

AC_INIT regression [was: AC_CHECK_SIZEOF([int *]) is error in autoconf-2.66]

On 07/10/2010 08:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > It would still be nice to address Bruno's report about AC_INIT and valid > version strings first. > > In thinking about that, would it be worth adding a new macro > AS_LITERAL_HEREDOC_IF, which is comparable to AS_LITERAL_IF and > AS_LITERAL_WORD_IF, but