Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Hi, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > I found another regression from this patch series. > > On Solaris 2.6 test-getloadavg now fails to link: > gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -L/usr/tgcware/lib -Wl,-R,/usr/tgcware/lib -o > test-getloadavg test-getloadavg.o ../gllib/libgnu > .a -lkvm -lelf -lm -lm -lm

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

On 06/16/2011 12:12 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: I wrote: Please review and comment. I'll wait for objections for a week. The week is over. I have now pushed the series of patches, after doing an additional test with --create-megatestdir. I found another regression from this patch series. On Sol

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Tom G. Christensen wrote: > a bootstrap with all modules is now broken. > > These modules contain references to a deleted m4 file: > crypto/gc-arcfour:m4/arcfour.m4 > crypto/gc-des:m4/des.m4 > crypto/gc-hmac-md5:m4/hmac-md5.m4 > crypto/gc-hmac-sha1:m4/hmac-sha1.m4 > crypto/gc-rijndael:m4/rijndael.

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

On 06/16/2011 12:12 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: I wrote: Please review and comment. I'll wait for objections for a week. The week is over. I have now pushed the series of patches, after doing an additional test with --create-megatestdir. Something went wrong because a bootstrap with all modules

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Jim Meyering wrote: > it complains about the following: > > m4/fprintftime.m4: AC_LIBOBJ([fprintftime]) > Do not use AC_LIBOBJ in m4/*.m4; > see I missed this one. Fixed: 2011-06-16 Bruno Haible fprintftime: Mo

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Jim Meyering wrote: > it complains about the following: > >     m4/stdio-safer.m4:  AC_LIBOBJ([tmpfile-safer]) >     Do not use AC_LIBOBJ in m4/*.m4; This file ought to have been removed. Fixed: 2011-06-16 Bruno Haible tmpfile-safer: Finish 2011-05-23 commit. * m4/stdio-safe

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Jim Meyering wrote: > it complains about the following: > >     m4/printf-posix-rpl.m4:  AC_LIBOBJ([printf]) >     Do not use AC_LIBOBJ in m4/*.m4; This one was a typo in my mail. Fixed: 2011-06-16 Bruno Haible syntax-check: Fix typo. * Makefile (allow_AC_LIBOBJ): Mention pri

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Bruno Haible wrote: > I wrote: >> Please review and comment. I'll wait for objections for a week. > > The week is over. I have now pushed the series of patches, after doing an > additional test with --create-megatestdir. Thanks. > Jim Meyering wrote: >> This new policy looks particularly easy to

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

I wrote: > Please review and comment. I'll wait for objections for a week. The week is over. I have now pushed the series of patches, after doing an additional test with --create-megatestdir. Jim Meyering wrote: > This new policy looks particularly easy to violate accidentally. > What do you thin

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... > Maybe this is a stupid question, but why are you removing the > `sc_prohibit_augmenting_PATH_via_TESTS_ENVIRONMENT' check here > (and its rules below)? If this is intended, it should be > mentioned in the ChangeLog IMHO. Ouch. That's two in one day. I removed it by

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Hi Jim. On Monday 13 June 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > > Thanks for the list. > Once you've applied your 300+ changes, > I'll make sure that this rule passes: > > From 4246fedf03280c5876fe90ffba8f9722218be61d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:01:47 +0200 >

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Bruno Haible wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> This looks like a fine improvement. >> I reviewed only the first dozen or so. > > Thanks for the review. Most of the patches follow the same idiom. > >> This new policy looks particularly easy to violate accidentally. >> What do you think about adding a

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Jim Meyering wrote: > This looks like a fine improvement. > I reviewed only the first dozen or so. Thanks for the review. Most of the patches follow the same idiom. > This new policy looks particularly easy to violate accidentally. > What do you think about adding a syntax-check rule to help avoi

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

Bruno Haible wrote: > In we > found out that every AC_LIBOBJ invocation must be triggered from a module > that contains the referred file. Otherwise bugs occur. > > The most straightforward and safe way to ensure this is to more t

Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions

On 06/06/2011 04:29 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi all, > > In we > found out that every AC_LIBOBJ invocation must be triggered from a module > that contains the referred file. Otherwise bugs occur. > > The most straightforward an