automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] Document AM_MISSING_PROG.


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document AM_MISSING_PROG.
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:09:26 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Hello Benoit,

* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 08:22:37PM CET:
> Please drop autoconf-patches when replying.  Thanks.

Done.

> On Nov 4, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > This is fine with me, given that we document AM_MISSING_PROG in
> > Automake.  That is not completely trivial, though: typically, the
> > "missing" script needs adjustment for tools, making it un-generic.
> 
> I did not quite understand what you meant here, Ralf, so I didn't do anything
> special.  Are you refering to the --run option of `missing'?

For example.  For another example, as a user I'd ask myself: what are
the semantics of "some arbitrary program" being run my `missing'?
(If we don't define any, we risk that the user just assumes whatever
currently happens; that prevents us from improving them later.)

Note that `missing' only helps really well for programs that it knows,
where it can emulate updating the target file so that the rule isn't
rerun every time.  This limits its usefulness for arbitrary programs.

I don't know how this fact can be documented well, or FWIW, this
limitation removed (plugins in shell?  tell the user to patch
`missing'?)

Note also that there is existing documentation for `missing'.  This new
part should interact with it (cross-reference if not close in location).

> By the way, the TODO file seems to have many rusted entries that have been
> lying there for too long or completed since a long time already.

Yes.  If you could provide a proper patch, that would help.  But please
make sure that the stuff you remove really has been fixed properly,
that's the big part of the work.  Some of the entries are rather
mysterious and some are difficult to understand.

[...]
> +cat > Makefile.am << 'EOF'
> +all-local:
> +     $(MYSHELL) -c 'echo hi >foo'
> +EOF
> +
> +cat >> configure.in << 'EOF'
> +AM_MISSING_PROG(MYSHELL, sh)
> +AC_OUTPUT
> +EOF
> +
> +$ACLOCAL
> +$AUTOCONF
> +$AUTOMAKE --add-missing
> +
> +./configure --prefix "`pwd`"
> +$MAKE
> +
> +echo hi >expected
> +
> +cmp foo expected

Would be good to also have a test with a program that does not exist,
i.e., a test that exposes all aspects of `missing's functionality,
OTOH, tests/missing*.test covers most of that already, so this is ok
I guess.

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

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