Re: [FYI] {maint} maintcheck: avoid few spurious failures

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:53:19AM CEST:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:59:57PM CEST:
> > > On Monday 20 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:05:45PM CEST:
> > > > >  sc_tests_plain_automake:
> > > > > -     @if grep -v '^#' $(srcdir)/tests/*.test | grep -E ':[   
> > > > > ]*automake([^:]|$$)'; then \
> > > > > +     @if grep -v '^#' $(srcdir)/tests/*.test | grep -E ':[   
> > > > > ]*automake\>([^:]|$$)'; then \
> > > > 
> > > > The RE that was there before was there specifically to emulate the
> > > > nonportable '\>' construct.  Now, I'm not sure I should fight for using
> > > > Posix compatible regular expressions in maintainer-check rules (seems I
> > > > lost that battle earlier already),
> > > >
> > > Well, notice that I've just followed the existing practice in using GNU
> > > grep extensions in the maintcheck rules;
> > 
> > Yes; notice that I had noticed that.
> >
> OK :-)

Sorry for being a language lawyer there again.  ;-)

> > > > but if you require GNU grep, please be consistent and remove the
> > > > now-unneeded stuff afterwards and the -E.
> > > >
> > > OK, I will push the attached patch if that's OK with you.
> > 
> > Ugh; 1/2 seems to be going into the wrong direction of changing test
> > code to work around suboptimal maintainer checks, so sorry for leading
> > you on a wrong path there again.  2/2 seems fine, thanks.
> >
> So should I drop the first patch and keep only the second one? 

Yes, please.

Thanks!
Ralf