Re: bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

On 12/07/2011 06:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/07/11 13:50, Eric Blake wrote: >> unless others can speak up with more reasons why we must cater to older find. > > How about if we do this instead? > > find "$local_gl_dir" -name '*.diff' -exec false {} + -exec false ';' Oh my - that is indee

Re: bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

On 12/07/11 13:50, Eric Blake wrote: > unless others can speak up with more reasons why we must cater to older find. How about if we do this instead? find "$local_gl_dir" -name '*.diff' -exec false {} + -exec false ';' This works fine with both old and new 'find' and means the same thing eithe

[PATCH] inttypes, stdint: add C++11 support

This proposed gnulib patch follows up on a thread in the autoconf mailing list rooted at . This text below was computed with "diff -w" to avoid spurious whitespace changes; the full (compressed) patch is attached. diff --git a/Chang

Re: gitlog-to-changelog and extra blurbs

On Wednesday 07 December 2011, Werner Koch wrote: > Hi, > Hello Werner. > I started to use gitlog-to-changelog for my projects. However, there is > a little annoying thing: Every so often I like to add longer blurbs to > the git commit log which I don't want to see in a ChangeLog. Examples > are

gitlog-to-changelog and extra blurbs

Hi, I started to use gitlog-to-changelog for my projects. However, there is a little annoying thing: Every so often I like to add longer blurbs to the git commit log which I don't want to see in a ChangeLog. Examples are quotes from discussions, benchmarks or a longer description. I came up wit

Re: bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

[re-adding the list] On 12/07/2011 02:36 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 12/07/2011 08:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> +if test ! -d "$local_gl_dir" \ >> +|| find "$local_gl_dir" -name '*.diff' -exec false {} +; then >> + : >> +else > > A small nit. > > I'm slightly wary with this first use of "f

Re: bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

On 12/07/2011 10:26 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Should we enhance bootstrap so as to require implicit build dependencies >> on patch, autoconf 2.59 or newer, and automake 1.9 or newer, in addition >> to whatever the cfg.mk dependencies list? Of course, cfg.mk can require >> a newer minimum version

Re: bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

On 12/07/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > The libvirt list just had a report of someone that got past bootstrap's > $buildreq version check, only to fail in gnulib-tool when applying > gnulib-local patches. Libvirt itself doesn't need patch during > configure or make, so it wasn't listed in cfg.

bootstrap $buildreq and implicit dependencies

The libvirt list just had a report of someone that got past bootstrap's $buildreq version check, only to fail in gnulib-tool when applying gnulib-local patches. Libvirt itself doesn't need patch during configure or make, so it wasn't listed in cfg.mk, and Alex didn't have patch(1) installed, but t