Bruno Haible [2025-01-26 04:36 +0100] wrote:
> Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Now I've noticed a separate issue with the VERSION_NUMBER docs:
>> running 'make dist' in a dirty worktree seems to get stuck in an
>> autoreconf loop involving GNUmakefile, judg
Bruno Haible [2025-01-25 04:08 +0100] wrote:
> And here's a further simplification: No more need to pass the PACKAGE name
> twice in different places.
Great, thank you! That means bootstrap can be reverted to not tracing
gl_INIT_PACKAGE again, right?
Another nice effect is that the 'redundant'
Bruno Haible [2025-01-23 21:47 +0100] wrote:
> Yes, and I hope that once the approach to let 'git-version-gen' be run
> at configure time (as opposed to autoconf time) is more widely accepted,
You have my vote ;).
>> IIUC this is because Gnulib's build-aux/bootstrap looks at AC_INIT
>> argum
Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list [2025-01-22 21:53 +0100] wrote:
> Spent the day thinking through the concepts and fixing all the problems.
Thank you for working on this!
I'm facing the following issues in adapting my project to the new
git-version-gen guidelines.
I've pushed a stripped-
Bruno Haible [2025-01-10 12:58 +0100] wrote:
> Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Does this imply that writing to a temporary file first is never needed
>> under distdir?
>
> No. It's never needed under $(distdir) *if* the Makefile rule fails when the
> command fails
Bruno Haible [2024-07-26 16:27 +0200] wrote:
> Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> The commentary in build-aux/git-version-gen illustrates how the files
>> .version and .tarball-version could be generated:
>>
>> $(top_srcdir)/.version:
>> echo '
Bruno Haible [2024-07-26 16:27 +0200] wrote:
> Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>
>> $(top_srcdir)/.version:
>> echo '$(VERSION)' > $@-t
>> mv $@-t $@
>> ...
>> I'm curious why one recipe writes a temporary file first
> Th
The commentary in build-aux/git-version-gen illustrates how the files
.version and .tarball-version could be generated:
$(top_srcdir)/.version:
echo '$(VERSION)' > $@-t
mv $@-t $@
dist-hook:
echo '$(VERSION)' > $(distdir)/.tarball-version
I'm curious why one recipe wri
Paul Eggert [2024-06-03 14:09 -0700] wrote:
> N2956 has a typo. In this statement:
>
> "Similarly, GCC’s pure is less restricted than the new standard attribute
> [[reproducible]], and an implementation of the GCC feature is, syntax aside,
> an
> implementation of the new standard attribute."
>
>
Bruno Haible [2024-05-31 15:03 +0200] wrote:
> Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Isn't this saying that C23 [[reproducible]] is stricter than GCC pure?
>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2956.htm#some-differences-with-gcc-const-and-pure
> Yes: [1], section
Paul Eggert [2024-05-28 08:37 -0700] wrote:
> + can depend on observable state. It is stricter than
> + _GL_ATTRIBUTE_REPRODUCIBLE because the function must return exactly
> + once and cannot affect state addressed by its arguments.) */
> /* Applies to: functions. */
> #ifndef _GL_ATTRI
Collin Funk [2024-03-17 15:03 -0700] wrote:
> +if len(cleansed) > 0:
> +return '\n'.join(cleansed)
> +else:
> +return ''
FWIW '\n'.join([]) is '', so perhaps it isn't necessary to check
len(cleansed).
Thanks,
--
Basil
12 matches
Mail list logo
