[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:45:18 +0200

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Lattarini
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 08:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/08/2012 19:14, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>>>>> * warn for unknown *_XYZFLAGS variables
>>> I'm still unconvinced it would be a good idea to introduce this
>>> incompatibility in Automake just for the sake of simplifying
>>> transition to Automake-NG, sorry.
>>>>> * warn for treating _SOURCES entries with a custom unknown user
>>>>> extension as if they were header files
>>> Ditto.
>> Uhm, either they are good warnings for both, or pointless
>> incompatibilities for both...  You had almost convinced me
>> of the former! :P
> No, I mean, we might make the warnings stricter for mainline Automake
> too, but that would cause extra headaches and incompatibilities.  Not
> much serious (so that they are OK tackle for someone ready to jump on
> the NG wagon), but noisy and annoying enough to make them unpalatable
> as an addition to mainline Automake.

Yes, I understood.  But if they are noisy and annoying, they are
_wrong_ to have in Automake-NG, no matter how it lets you simplify
things.  On the other hand, you almost convinced me that they are
_good_ warnings, and in general cryptic behavior is one of the common
criticisms of Autotools; so we need more warnings, not less.

By implementing the warnings in mainline (1.13) you could hear user's
opinions even if they do not jump on NG, and perhaps help people find
a couple of bugs.  If you get too many complaints, you can either make
them opt-in (-Wsomething) and review your NG plans, or refine the


reply via email to

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