Re: [PATCH 3/3] autoreconf: assume --force-missing automake option is supported

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 09/21/2012 05:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 02:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> According to Automake's NEWS file, it is since at least Automake 1.8,
>> and in autoreconf we are already assuming aclocal >= 1.8 anyway.
>>
>> * bin/autoreconf.in (parse_args): Simplify a little by just assuming
>> the automake option '--force-missing' is supported.
>> ($automake_supports_force_missing): Delete, no longer needed.
>> * NEWS: Update.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  NEWS              | 3 ++-
>>  bin/autoreconf.in | 6 +-----
>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
>> index 54e8112..e5e0dcc 100644
>> --- a/NEWS
>> +++ b/NEWS
>> @@ -5,7 +5,8 @@ GNU Autoconf NEWS - User visible changes.
>>  ** The use of the long-deprecated name 'configure.in' for the autoconf
>>     input file now elicits a warning in the 'obsolete' category.
>>  
>> -** Older version of aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported by autoreconf.
>> +** Older version of automake and aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported
> 
> You'll hit a minor merge conflict here once you apply my suggested fix
> to 1/3.
> 
> Thinking out loud, do we want to mention the 'Automake package', since
> both 'automake' and 'aclocal' executables come from the same package?
> That is, maybe:
> 
> Older versions of the Automake package (< 1.8) are no longer supported
> by autoreconf.
> 
> Or is that too subtle for why we aren't listing aclocal?  Your choice.
>
I'd like to keep aclocal mentioned, for clarity.  If you disagree, or can
come up with better wording, feel free to change NEWS accordingly with a
follow-up patch.  I have on strong feeling here, so what you'll decide
will be fine with me.

> ACK.
> 
Thanks, pushed.

Regards,
  Stefano