[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time

From: Alexandre Oliva
Subject: Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time
Date: 12 May 2001 16:44:20 -0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.090002 (Oort Gnus v0.02) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)

On May 12, 2001, Bruce Korb <address@hidden> wrote:

> Run this command:

>    autogen -L ${prefix}/share/autogen --save=$HOME/.autogenrc

Huh?  Why do I have to run this?  Doesn't is search its own directory
by default?  It should.  If I do this, when I install the next release
of autogen, in a different prefix, it will break again.  Please fix
the problem in autogen (unless you've already fixed it in a newer
version, in which case, please let me know that I should upgrade)

>> I still have to be convinced it will be advantageous to use this
>> instead of say m4 or sic.  I can't see how we're going to factor out
>> multiple occurrences of certain constructs ($echo "Xsomething" |

> The method is to put that stuff into the lt_mumble.def files.
> From there, it gets copied into the file and sucked
> into the C program as well.

I don't get it.  What I want to know is how we're going to be able to
simplify the shell code in lt_mumble.def, so as to make it more
manageable.  I don't see any advantage at all in having half a dozen
.def files that are just a bit of junk around the original shell code.
We need to be able to define higher-level commands and use them,
instead of repeating patterns in the shell code, pretty much like m4
macros would let us do.  How are we going to do this with AutoGen.
Please show me an example of factoring out all (or some) occurrences
of pathname canonicalization into a single
macro/function/template/whatever somewhere, then using this thing
in places we currently do pathname canonicalization.

>> Please prove me wrong, Bruce.  Please, please! :-D

> I hope this does so.  :-D

I'm afraid this is far from it :-(

>> Make sure you tag the binary-branch and the MLB so that we can easily
>> identify and merge any changes, should they occur.

> I don't know what this means.  I tagged the "binary-branch".
> What more do I need do?

You created a branch.  Whenever you create a branch, you should also
create a branchpoint tag, so that you can easily tell what has changed
in the branch since it started, and what has changed in the base
branch/trunk since the branch was cut, so that you can merge one into
the other, or just make sure nothing changed.

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden,}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden,}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

reply via email to

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