Re: bug#7944: Should AM_PATH_PYTHON call AC_ARG_VAR?

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Monday 14 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:35:17PM CET:
> > On Friday 11 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > 
> > > There are a couple of things that I think could be better.  One sentence
> > > as a paragraph on its own isn't too pretty.  The PYTHON override doesn't
> > > seem to be the most important thing to me, so I'd put it last not first.
> > > This would be in line with how autoconf.texi documents many macros:
> > > cache and override variables are listed late.  Also, I'd document that
> > > the PYTHON variable is set by the macro.  Ahh, that is already done,
> > > further down in the text.  I think the mention of override could be
> > > placed there as well.
> > > 
> > > So, how about this instead?  Feel free to squash in and push if you
> > > agree.
> > >
> > Hmmm... is the diff you posted incomplete, or am I missing something?
> > I'll refrain from pushing the patch until this issue is clarified.
> 
> I think the diff was complete in the sense that all my intended changes
> were shown,
>
Oh.  I thought it was incomplete in the sense that it didn't address some
of the issues you had brought up (``The PYTHON override doesn't seem to
be the most important thing to me, so I'd put it last not first'', ``One
sentence as a paragraph on its own isn't too pretty'', etc,).  I think
we are experiencing a communication problem here; i.e., I can't understand
whether I'm supposed to address those issues myself, or whether you think
that they are secondary, your squash-in diff is enough, and I should push
after having just applied it.  Could you please clarify?  Thanks.

> but I just really botched up and sent a diff against a file
> that had further unrelated changes.
> 
> > Also, an unrelated issue: I couldn't find a way to apply the diff you
> > posted automatically (with either 'git' or 'patch'), and I had to apply
> > it manually (yuck!).  I assume that I'm clearly missing something here.
> > So, to spare myself similar situations in the future, I'd like to ask:
> > how could I have applied the patch below automatically?
> 
> Probably not at all.  Sorry about that.  I'll try to be better next
> time.  (I'm mildly confused by your "an unrelated issue"; are they two
> separate issues?)
>
See above.

> If you are OK with the intended changes of the diff, then IMVHO you can
> go ahead.
> 
At cost of being annoying, I'd rather wait for the clarification I've
asked above (but sorry for all this fuss about such a simple patch).

Thanks, and sorry for the noise,
   Stefano