[debbugs-tracker] bug#9890: closed (cosmetic bug in AM_MAINTAINER_MODE)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:31:46 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#9890: cosmetic bug in AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #9890,
regarding cosmetic bug in AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
9890: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9890
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: cosmetic bug in AM_MAINTAINER_MODE Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:37:34 -0700

If you use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]), configure will print

> checking whether to disable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles ... yes

when --disable-maintainer-mode was *not* given on the command line, and

> checking whether to disable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles ... no

when it *was* given.  This states the opposite of what has actually happened.

The easiest way to fix this cosmetic bug is to not use
am_maintainer_other in the first argument to AC_MSG_CHECKING.  The
result code ($USE_MAINTAINER_MODE) is "yes" if maintainer mode is
enabled and "no" if it isn't, regardless of what the default was, so
it will always be correct to say "checking whether to enable ...".
Patch attached.

(Bug found in automake/aclocal 1.11, but maintainer.m4 doesn't seem to
have been modified in a long time.)

zw

mm4.diff
Description: Text Data

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#9890: cosmetic bug in AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:31:46 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; )
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday 29 October 2011, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > On 2011-10-29 3:18 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > Zack, are you the same "Zack Weinberg" already listed in the THANKS file
> > > with the address "address@hidden"?  If yes, should I update that
> > > address?
> > 
> > Yes I am, and yes you should update that address.  I left CodeSourcery 
> > in 2005, but I mean address@hidden to remain valid indefinitely.
> > 
> I've amended the THANKS file, and pushed the patch.  I'm thus closing
> this bug report.
>
> Regards,
>   Stefano
>
>
> --- End Message ---