[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug reports, and lack of feedback (was: make -j1 fails)

From: Dave Hart
Subject: Re: bug reports, and lack of feedback (was: make -j1 fails)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:47:50 +0000

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 19:30 UTC, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Dave Hart wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:49:02AM CET:
>> While you're waiting for that,
>> perhaps you could pursue the problem I
>> did take the time to provide a reduced test case for in November:
>> Note that this issue is no longer a problem for NTP -- autogen's
>> libopts now provides LIBOPTS_CHECK_NOBUILD, which sidesteps the need
>> to conditionalize AC_CONFIG_FILES([libopts/Makefile]), and works
>> correctly on Automake 1.10, which doesn't support AM_COND_IF
>> conditionalization of AC_CONFIG_FILES.
> Good to know.
>> I am annoyed no one has taken the time to follow up after I took the
>> time to produce a reduced test case illustrating the automake
>> misbehavior, and each time I see a request for a reduced repro, I
>> wonder what I might have done wrong in anticipating the request and
>> providing the reduced test case in the initial report.
> I looked at it for maybe half an hour back then, and didn't see an easy
> way to fix it.  Sorry.  I should maybe have followed up to let you know.
> You didn't do anything wrong, otherwise I would eventually have asked.
> But anyway we should've thanked you for the report, so please allow me
> to thank you now for the nice and well-written bug report!

Thank you for the update.  Knowing that you were able to understand my
less-than-succinct report, and to recognize the problem, satisfies
most of my concerns.

> Generally, there are more bug reports than there are people looking at
> them, analyzing and fixing them.  As is the case in so many free
> software projects.  If you are dissatisfied with that, and you have
> resources, you are very welcome to help out.

I understand.

> Other than that, I guess I
> should encourage using our new-ish debbugs bug tracker (just write to
> bug-automake to open a new PR) to be a little more sure issues don't get
> lost.
> I typically try to make sure rather quickly that a report is complete,
> so that when someone eventually gets to it, they have a chance to do
> something productive with it even if the original reporter has gone off
> to some other pasture in the meantime.
> Since you now have a workaround for your bug, I hope you understand that
> the priority of it is rather low.  Sorry again, but that's how bug
> economics work, necessarily.

I do understand the priority is low for practical reasons.  From an
engineering standpoint, I remain unsatisfied that Automake claims to
allow conditionalizing AC_CONFIG_FILES in AM_COND_IF but flubs this
instance.  I will open a PR, thanks for pointing out what should have
been obvious to me as I knew of the debbugs tracker for automake.

Thanks for your time,
Dave Hart

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]