On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
* warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
>> Turns out this has already been do
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
>>>
>>> * warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
>>>
> Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
> I'll just remove support for i
On 08/21/2012 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Looking at GNU Smalltalk, I see:
>>
>> * warn for INCLUDES (vs. AM_CPPFLAGS)
>>
Turns out this has already been done for ages (at least since 2003).
I'll just remove support for it in Automake 1.13. See the patch
below.
OK?
Regards,
Stefano
--
On 08/21/2012 07:14 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> * Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest converting suffix
>> rules to pattern rules
>>
> Yep, I will amend NG-NEWS to suggest that.
>
Done with the patch below. I will push shortly.
8<---
Il 21/08/2012 20:58, Bob Friesenhahn ha scritto:
>>>
>> Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
>> the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
>>
>>> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
>>> harm to the free software world
>>
On 21/08/2012 13:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yes, but I (speaking as another distro maintainer) think that's a problem
> with the upstreams that do that, rather than a problem with Automake in
> how it offers the functionality. The upstreams just require some
> education around how distros use unatt
Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
> On 21/08/2012 09:47, Eric Blake wrote:
>> The 'silent-rules' change in automake change did NOT make more builds
>> instantly silent, nor are we preventing you from your goal of noisy
>> builds for the Fedora buildbots.
> That being the case I retire my note as well —
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
> * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
>
>>> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
>>> incompatibility
On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
>> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
>> incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
>> transition to Aut
On 08/21/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>> Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
>> the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
>>
>>> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
harm to the free software world
Which harm are you
Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>> > * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
>> >
> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
> incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
> transition to Automake-NG, sorry.
>
>> > * warn for treating _SOUR
On 21/08/2012 09:47, Eric Blake wrote:
> The
> 'silent-rules' change in automake change did NOT make more builds
> instantly silent, nor are we preventing you from your goal of noisy
> builds for the Fedora buildbots.
That being the case I retire my note as well — although it seems like
most ups
On 08/21/2012 10:30 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> And I've done that already where possible and reasonable. For example,
>>> the 'silent-rules' option is now active by default, and the tags-related
>>> rules have been reworked and improved.
>
> Well, from a distro maintainer's view this a bad ide
On 08/21/2012 07:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>> Maybe we just need good PR and "advertisment" in this. The python
>> developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
>> series, because they've been very clear and vocal abo
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Maybe we just need good PR and "advertisment" in this. The python
developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the breakage,
and have been for a long time. We might
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
>>>
>>> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
>>> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
>
> And another question:
>
> * Alternatively, could Automak
On 08/21/2012 06:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
>
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. B
On 21/08/2012 09:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> In Fedora we already are pushing around package maintainers to pass
> appropriate options to configure to revert this change, because silent
> make rules are non-suitable for building distros in batch jobs.
The same is true for Gentoo.
> In other words
Il 21/08/2012 18:30, Ralf Corsepius ha scritto:
>>
>> Yes, that's correct. PR and advertisement is what lacked in the early
>> Autoconf 2.5x releases.
>
> Really? That's not how I recall the situation. I recall people turning
> away from autoconf in disgust because of the numerous incompatiblitie
On 08/21/2012 06:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
This needs to be done for each NG-NEWS items. It could improve the
existing users of Automake, and reduce the size of NG-NEWS. Both of
which are good things!
And I've done that already whe
Il 21/08/2012 18:01, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>
>>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
>>>
>>> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
>>> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
>
> And another question:
>
> * Alternatively, could Autom
>> Ok. So the question I'd like you to ask yourself are:
>>
>> * Why does it make sense to request manual declaration of 'SUFFIXES'?
>> * Does it make sense to do so in Automake, too?
And another question:
* Alternatively, could Automake-NG suggest converting suffix rules to
pattern rules so th
On 08/21/2012 05:49 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>> Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone
>> not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x
>> branch),
>> bison, dejagnu, parted and aut
On 08/21/2012 05:09 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have
>> made sense would have been a mapping like
>
> Yes that would have helped _a lot_.
>
> Another thing that would have helped would
Il 21/08/2012 17:42, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
> Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone
> not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x
> branch),
> bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf has already been successfully converted:
>
>
On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
hope the answer is yes, of course).
>> From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
>> painful. It w
On 08/21/2012 05:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>> Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
>> different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
>> with very, very similar design and API; and that a
On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have
> made sense would have been a mapping like
Yes that would have helped _a lot_.
Another thing that would have helped would have been out-of-the-box
support for multiple installed versi
Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
>> > do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
>> > hope the answer is yes, of course).
> From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
> painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages usin
Il 21/08/2012 16:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
> Bottom line is: we want to make it clear that Automake-NG is something
> different from Automake -- albeit mostly compatible, deliberately, and
> with very, very similar design and API; and that a transition between
> the two won't be seamless --
On 21/08/2012 07:32, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
> hope the answer is yes, of course).
>From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using
autoconf-2.1
On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>> But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next
>> version of Automake, it is the "Next Generation": it's not meant to
>> be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede
Il 21/08/2012 14:44, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
> But there is an important difference: Automake-NG is *not* the next
> version of Automake, it is the "Next Generation": it's not meant to
> be merged into the Automake code base, nor to supersede Automake,
> because the two projects have differen
On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2012 12:10, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
(AC_SUBST): Define AM_VARTYPOS_WHITELIST to "LIBFFI_EXECUTABLE_LDFLAGS
RELOC_LDFLAGS". This is required because Automake-NG is stricter than
mainline Automake in its make runtime checks
35 matches
Mail list logo
