Re: bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

[Dropping Automake-NG] On 01/04/2013 01:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/03/2013 04:54 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Then again, it is autoconf that defines AC_PROG_MAKE_SET which in turn >>> provides @SET_MAKE@ for substitution in Makefiles; >>> >> Right, I had forgotten about that. I somehow

Re: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 01/03/2013 04:54 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Then again, it is autoconf that defines AC_PROG_MAKE_SET which in turn >> provides @SET_MAKE@ for substitution in Makefiles; >> > Right, I had forgotten about that. I somehow just took it for granted > that it was all Automake's doing ... > > So

[PATCH] AT_TESTED: fix regression in word splitting

Regression introduced in commit 851ef51. * lib/autotest/general.m4 (AT_TESTED): Rework loop to quote each element, not the entire argument. --- This appears to fix the problem (when given AT_TESTED([autoconf automake]), we were adding "autoconf automake" instead of "autoconf" "automake" to the li

Re: bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 01/04/2013 12:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> On 01/03/2013 11:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: >>> On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: TARGETS = all check clean distclean dist distcheck install uninstall .PHONY: $(TA

Re: [PATCH] docs: mention $MAKE during configure

On 01/03/2013 11:22 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/03/2013 03:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 01/03/2013 10:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Based on a suggestion from Bob Friesenhahn: >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2013-01/msg00017.html >>> >>> * doc/install.texi (Defining Va

Re: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 01/04/2013 12:31 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/03/2013 03:05 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Yeah, probably AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE should enhance the configure help message to report the "quirky" role of $MAKE (patches welcome). >>> >>> I'll think about an automake patch to make it precio

Re: [GNU Autoconf 2.69.59-adc84] testsuite: 132 355 failed

On 12/31/2012 04:17 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> 132: autotest.at:300Tested programs >> autotest > > I've reproduced this locally, and hope to have it fixed soon (eek, my > day is almost over, and I'm still stalled with getting m4 1.4.17 > released, because that turned up some needed gn

Re: bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: On 01/03/2013 11:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: TARGETS = all check clean distclean dist distcheck install uninstall .PHONY: $(TARGETS) $(TARGETS): ; @gmake $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $@ Unfortunately, th

Re: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 01/03/2013 03:05 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Yeah, probably AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE should enhance the configure help message >>> to report the "quirky" role of $MAKE (patches welcome). >> >> I'll think about an automake patch to make it precious (at this point, >> I'm thinking that the use o

Re: bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 01/03/2013 11:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> >> TARGETS = all check clean distclean dist distcheck install uninstall >> .PHONY: $(TARGETS) >> $(TARGETS): ; @gmake $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $@ > > Unfortunately, this kind of wrapper doesn't work pa

Re: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 01/03/2013 10:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote: [...] > > Hmm, that goes back to one of the questions we asked about Automake-NG - > > is it possible to write a generic makefile that merely forwards all > > requests to gmake, and where all of the real

Re: [PATCH] docs: mention $MAKE during configure

On 01/03/2013 03:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 01/03/2013 10:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> Based on a suggestion from Bob Friesenhahn: >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2013-01/msg00017.html >> >> * doc/install.texi (Defining Variables): Mention that MAKE >> can be overridden,

Re: [PATCH] docs: mention $MAKE during configure

On 01/03/2013 10:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > Based on a suggestion from Bob Friesenhahn: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2013-01/msg00017.html > > * doc/install.texi (Defining Variables): Mention that MAKE > can be overridden, and the caveats that come with setting it. > --- > >

Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation

[+cc Automake-NG] Reference: On 01/03/2013 10:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/03/2013 02:14 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> So what's the verdict - do we (want to) support the user overriding >>> MAKE, and therefore document that in INSTAL

[PATCH] docs: mention $MAKE during configure

Based on a suggestion from Bob Friesenhahn: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2013-01/msg00017.html * doc/install.texi (Defining Variables): Mention that MAKE can be overridden, and the caveats that come with setting it. --- How does this look? doc/install.texi | 10 +- 1

Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?

On 01/03/2013 02:14 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> So what's the verdict - do we (want to) support the user overriding >> MAKE, and therefore document that in INSTALL? >> > Indeed, we should warn the user that if he configures an Autotools-based > package with MAKE set in the environment (or passe

Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?

Hi Eric. On 01/03/2013 09:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > [adding bug-autoconf, as owner of the source that becomes the generic > GNU INSTALL file] > > On 01/03/2013 01:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: It is a problem that MAKE is not mentioned in

Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?

[adding bug-autoconf, as owner of the source that becomes the generic GNU INSTALL file] On 01/03/2013 01:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> >>> It is a problem that MAKE is not mentioned in the standard >>> GNU INSTALL file, or in Automake's own INSTAL