[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: distchecking without FC?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: distchecking without FC? |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:52:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Hi Noah,
* Noah Misch wrote on Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:36:06PM CEST:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:38:49PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Noah Misch wrote on Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:43:52AM CEST:
>
> I am somewhat concerned about a developer using `reconfdirs=. ./bootstrap;
> ./configure; make dist' on a fresh checkout and silently losing the
> generated files in the test directories. With the old mechanism or
> the literal file list mechanism, this cannot happen. We could fight
> this with a sanity check, like a test on `grep -c Makefile.in
> test-disk.mk'.
Hmm, yes.
> This patch and the literal-file-list one share a further problem: if
> the generated files in test directories are out-of-date, nothing will
> update them.
Indeed. That's bad.
> The current code gets that right, at least.
Well, this is an argument for showing your latest version of
tests/f{c,77}demo/configure.ac changes to become nonlethal in case of
non-presence of Fortran (77) compilers. Did you get much further there?
> Alas, I did not expect a clean solution to prove so elusive :(
Oh, I fully expected this issue to be ugly. Which is why I never took a
good stab at it (sorry for offloading this to you).
> > > +# Bootstrap `.' last.
> > > +case $reconfdirs in
> > > + . | '. '* | *' . '* | *' .') $AUTORECONF --force --verbose --install ;;
> > > +esac
> >
> > Why not simple, like above the `find'?
> >
> > for sub in $reconfdirs; do
> > test "$sub" = . && $AUTORECONF --force --verbose --install
> > done
>
> We must bootstrap the test directories first (so the relevant files
> exist), then generate test-dist.mk, then bootstrap the root directory
> (where Makefile.am includes test-dist.mk).
Sure. That's why I suggested repeating the loop down below again, but
now only picking `.'. I simply thought that a second loop looks cleaner
(and is probably faster) than a complicated case expression. But since
we're rather moving away from this patch variant, this minor point
matters little.
Cheers, and thanks,
Ralf
- Re: distchecking without FC?, (continued)
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Benoit Sigoure, 2007/06/15
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/06/16
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Noah Misch, 2007/06/17
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Noah Misch, 2007/06/18
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/06/19
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Noah Misch, 2007/06/19
- Re: distchecking without FC?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Noah Misch, 2007/06/21
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/06/21
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Benoit Sigoure, 2007/06/21
- Re: distchecking without FC?, Noah Misch, 2007/06/21