[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 3/3] autoreconf: assume --force-missing automake option is su
Re: [PATCH 3/3] autoreconf: assume --force-missing automake option is supported
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:49:09 +0200
On 09/21/2012 05:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 02:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> According to Automake's NEWS file, it is since at least Automake 1.8,
>> and in autoreconf we are already assuming aclocal >= 1.8 anyway.
>> * bin/autoreconf.in (parse_args): Simplify a little by just assuming
>> the automake option '--force-missing' is supported.
>> ($automake_supports_force_missing): Delete, no longer needed.
>> * NEWS: Update.
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden>
>> NEWS | 3 ++-
>> bin/autoreconf.in | 6 +-----
>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
>> index 54e8112..e5e0dcc 100644
>> --- a/NEWS
>> +++ b/NEWS
>> @@ -5,7 +5,8 @@ GNU Autoconf NEWS - User visible changes.
>> ** The use of the long-deprecated name 'configure.in' for the autoconf
>> input file now elicits a warning in the 'obsolete' category.
>> -** Older version of aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported by autoreconf.
>> +** Older version of automake and aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported
> You'll hit a minor merge conflict here once you apply my suggested fix
> to 1/3.
> Thinking out loud, do we want to mention the 'Automake package', since
> both 'automake' and 'aclocal' executables come from the same package?
> That is, maybe:
> Older versions of the Automake package (< 1.8) are no longer supported
> by autoreconf.
> Or is that too subtle for why we aren't listing aclocal? Your choice.
I'd like to keep aclocal mentioned, for clarity. If you disagree, or can
come up with better wording, feel free to change NEWS accordingly with a
follow-up patch. I have on strong feeling here, so what you'll decide
will be fine with me.