Re: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin

2015-05-08 Thread Eric Blake
On 05/08/2015 05:13 PM, Arthur Schwarz wrote: >> >> >> On 05/08/2015 04:55 PM, Arthur Schwarz wrote: >>> >>> I just checked the latest iteration of my output listing (VERBOSE = 1) > and >>> saw the rule for >>> Makefile:478 showing test-suite.log failed. Don't know why. >>> >> >> If any test causes

RE: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin

2015-05-08 Thread Arthur Schwarz
> > > On 05/08/2015 04:55 PM, Arthur Schwarz wrote: > > > > I just checked the latest iteration of my output listing (VERBOSE = 1) and > > saw the rule for > > Makefile:478 showing test-suite.log failed. Don't know why. > > > > If any test causes a FAIL, XPASS, or ERROR condition, then 'make c

Re: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin

2015-05-08 Thread Eric Blake
On 05/08/2015 04:55 PM, Arthur Schwarz wrote: > > I just checked the latest iteration of my output listing (VERBOSE = 1) and > saw the rule for > Makefile:478 showing test-suite.log failed. Don't know why. > If any test causes a FAIL, XPASS, or ERROR condition, then 'make check' will likewise fa

RE: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin

2015-05-08 Thread Arthur Schwarz
I just checked the latest iteration of my output listing (VERBOSE = 1) and saw the rule for Makefile:478 showing test-suite.log failed. Don't know why. The output listing is below and the Makefile.am is included in an attachment. Heck, I don't know what I'm doing. If anyone can explain what I ne

RE: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin

2015-05-08 Thread Arthur Schwarz
> > > -Original Message- > From: Eric Blake [mailto:ebl...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:02 PM > To: Arthur Schwarz; automake@gnu.org > Subject: Re: How do you set VERBOSE for parallel testin > > On 05/07/2015 03:42 PM, Arthur Schwarz wrote: > > I'm trying to set VERBOSE

Re: [patch 3/28] fixincludes: Use automake-1.11.6 (across the tree)

2015-05-08 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
On 05/08/2015 12:10 AM, Bruce Korb wrote: > On 05/06/15 01:58, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> Trivial patch for fixincludes. > > A) sufficiently trivial that explicit permission ought not be required Agreed for the actual code change - more important is to notify the automake revbump. > B) it