-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 12/10/2009 4:37 AM:
> Well, as a matter of readability, I use a '-e' (or '-f') option in every 'sed'
> invocation.
And the autoconf manual recommends against blindly using -e:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/a
Eric Blake wrote:
> > Plus a useless use of cat, for a total of 3 processes? Come on, we can do
> > better than that.
In Makefile rules that are executed exactly once per build, I focus on
correctness
and maintainability, not on optimization.
> > sed -n '/GL_LINK_WARNING/,$$ p' $(top_srcdir)/bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 12/9/2009 10:56 AM:
> Plus a useless use of cat, for a total of 3 processes? Come on, we can do
> better than that. A single sed process is sufficient, by rephrasing the
> problem (rather than what do we want to exclude,
Bruno Haible clisp.org> writes:
>
> The empty line after the copyright header was intended to be removed as well.
> This appears to require two sed pipes in a row.
Plus a useless use of cat, for a total of 3 processes? Come on, we can do
better than that. A single sed process is sufficient,
Bruno Haible writes:
> I'm applying this:
Thanks! Jim's change looks fine too.
/Simon
Hi Jim,
> the bootstrap script,
> which prepends lines like these to build-aux/link-warning.h:
>
> /* -*- buffer-read-only: t -*- vi: set ro: */
> /* DO NOT EDIT! GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY! */
>
> In that case, the hard-coded "17" is incorrect
Oops, sure. I wasn't aware of these extra lin
Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Bruno, what do you think? For rationale, I got a comment in
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?9954 that link-warning.h lacked licensing
>> information.
>
> With the coding guideline that every file should have a copyright statement,
> and the license audits that they do in D
Hi Simon,
> Bruno, what do you think? For rationale, I got a comment in
> https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?9954 that link-warning.h lacked licensing
> information.
With the coding guideline that every file should have a copyright statement,
and the license audits that they do in Debian, I nearly s
Bruno, what do you think? For rationale, I got a comment in
https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?9954 that link-warning.h lacked licensing
information. I would have used the normal GPLv2+ license header in this
file, but it seems gnulib-tool --import --lgpl does not change it to
LGPLv2.1+ (presumably b
