Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Jim Meyering wrote: > Martin von Gagern wrote: > ... > 5. sc_prohibit_always-defined_macros reports missing files: > > The sc_prohibit_always-defined_macros check will cause error messages > about missing files to be emitted if elements from the gl_other_headers_ > list are not

Re: Syntax checks in perl (was: Re: maint.mk syntax check problems)

Hi Martin. On Thursday 15 September 2011, Martin von wrote: > On 15.09.2011 11:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > > I'm sure that a perl-based > > implementation would be far more efficient, and probably faster > > even if the perl implementation doesn't run its tests in parallel. > > > > Perl is well sui

Syntax checks in perl (was: Re: maint.mk syntax check problems)

On 15.09.2011 11:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > I'm sure that a perl-based > implementation would be far more efficient, and probably faster > even if the perl implementation doesn't run its tests in parallel. > > Perl is well suited to this task. > I'm sure some will object to Perl's syntax, but not I

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... >> Converting to a stand-alone script is a fine and seductive idea. > > About an yaer ago I had proposed a similar move for automake's own > maintainer checks; see this RFC patch: > At first gla

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi Jim. On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Martin von Gagern wrote: > ... > >> It might not be worth the effort/disruption. > >> One advantage of using Makefile rules is that it's easy to override > >> the defaults, as you see in the examples above. > > > > Not so hard with shell

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern wrote: ... >> It might not be worth the effort/disruption. >> One advantage of using Makefile rules is that it's easy to override >> the defaults, as you see in the examples above. > > Not so hard with shell scripts either. Use "source cfg.sh" instead of > "-include ./cfg.mk" and

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern writes: > Re-sending for the mailing list, forgot that a moment ago. > > On 14.09.2011 16:49, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I'm not a fan of separate shell scripts, each new file to deal with >> seems to incur a small maintainance cost over time -- consider when they >> are renamed

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Re-sending for the mailing list, forgot that a moment ago. On 14.09.2011 16:49, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I'm not a fan of separate shell scripts, each new file to deal with > seems to incur a small maintainance cost over time -- consider when they > are renamed or moved. I think gnulib already in

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern writes: > And I'm still interested in some feedback what you think about turning > those syntax checks into a shell script file instead of embedding so > much ugly backslash-continued shell code into the makefile. I'm not a fan of separate shell scripts, each new file to deal w

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern wrote: ... 5. sc_prohibit_always-defined_macros reports missing files: The sc_prohibit_always-defined_macros check will cause error messages about missing files to be emitted if elements from the gl_other_headers_ list are not present (i.e. not imported).

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Thanks, Jim, for the swift reply this time! On 14.09.2011 14:49, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> 1. main.mk fails its own checks: >>> >>> The checks sc_makefile_at_at_check and sc_prohibit_undesirable_word_seq >>> both fail for me, as the maint.mk file itself violates these checks. >>> >>> I know, this wi

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern wrote: > I recently wrote a mail with various remarks about how maint.mk syntax > checks give false positives, and some suggestions to avoid these. Bruno > Haible was kind enough to voice an opinion on items 2 and 3 of that > list, but I have seen no reply to any of the other prob

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi! I recently wrote a mail with various remarks about how maint.mk syntax checks give false positives, and some suggestions to avoid these. Bruno Haible was kind enough to voice an opinion on items 2 and 3 of that list, but I have seen no reply to any of the other problems. And I'm still interes

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi Bruno, thanks for your reply! On 05.09.2011 21:45, Bruno Haible wrote: > I don't think it makes sense to run such stylistic checks on files that > are not under your control. po/Makefile.in.in is owned by the gettext > maintainer, and the *.po files are in the hands of the translators. > In ot

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi, Martin von Gagern wrote: > 2. sc_prohibit_undesirable_word_seq and gettext: > > Makefile.in.in as generated by gettextize will contain the undesirable > phrase "can not" ... > > 3. sc_prohibit_doubled_word and non-ASCII text: > > In my po/pt_BR.po file >

maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi! I'm currently updating GNU wdiff to use latest gnulib, 2c53fc42. In the process, I've encountered a number of problems with maint.mk syntax checks. 1. main.mk fails its own checks: The checks sc_makefile_at_at_check and sc_prohibit_undesirable_word_seq both fail for me, as the maint.mk file