Re: GNU make 4.3.91 on Debian 9.1

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 15:59 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Maybe just augmenting the check target to do more?
> 
> Yes. Instead of printing
>   See .diff* files in work dir for details it could
>   - generate a summary file with details (like test-suite.log, described
>     above), and/or
>   - generate tarball with useful info to send, and/or
>   - (if you prefer receiving mails with several attachments instead of a
>     tarball attachment) print a list of files to send.
> And ideally, also print the email address for the reports. I sent my reports
> to bug-make@; Nelson sent his to platform-testers@.

I've implemented changes to the "make check" target so that if it fails
you'll see output like this:

    <...>
  1 Test in 1 Category Failed (See .diff* files in work dir for details) :-(

  *** Testing failed!  Details saved in: makeerror-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
  *** Please report to <bug-make@gnu.org>

  make[3]: *** [Makefile:1537: check-regression] Error 1
  make[2]: *** [Makefile:1271: check-am] Error 2
  make[1]: *** [Makefile:973: check-recursive] Error 1
  make: *** [Makefile:1192: distcheck] Error 1

The tar file is named with the host triplet, and all the things I might
want (hopefully!!) are there.  It exists in the working directory.

This will be in the next release.

I've also gone through the previous results and adjusted the regression
tests to hopefully resolve at least some of the failures.  Dmitry
provided fixes for a few tests as well.

I'm not sure what to do about the mingw and cygwin tests.  I will see
what I can figure out but these might have to wait for the next
release.

> > the src/config.h file
> 
> The src/config.h is redundant IMO, since it is derived from
> config.status.

That's true for "configure"-capable systems but on other systems it
might be copied from a known-good config.h.

But, I guess the platform-testers wouldn't ever be testing those other
systems.