[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ha-dev
Subject:    Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Re: automake 1.4 : --copy problem? (fwd)
From:       David Lee <t.d.lee () durham ! ac ! uk>
Date:       2001-06-27 9:05:53
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, David Lee wrote:

> Attached below is a reply to a message about the "automake --copy"
> problem.
> 
> It seems, indeed, to be a known problem.  I strongly suspect that it is
> harmless (it actually seems to do the job properly but complains).  But I
> have sent a further message asking for clarification, and enquiring
> whether there is a recommended workaround and/or statement.

Further to the earlier messages, here is Gary Vaughan's subsequent reply.

Summary:  The messages are only seen by folk doing development from CVS,
not by simple installers from tar-like versions (which will already
include the three files).  The messages are spurious and can be ignored. 
Indeed, they are to be expected and any *non*-appearance may indicate
troubles. 

Action (if any) is left to Alan's discretion and experience.  But judging
by the concern expressed on ths list, it might be worth considering
inclusion of a "note to CVS junkies" or similar. 

# Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:53:43 +0100
# From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <gary@oranda.demon.co.uk>
# To: David Lee <t.d.lee@durham.ac.uk>
# Cc: automake@gnu.org
# Subject: Re: automake 1.4 : --copy problem?
# 
# On Tuesday 26 June 2001 10:34 am, David Lee wrote:
# > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
# > > This is a long standing bug that has been fixed in release versions since
# > > automake-1.4-p1.  You can always find the latest automake release at
# > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/automake/ or any of the gnu mirrors.
# >
# > Many thanks for your reply, which is appreciated.
# >
# > I realise this bug won't affect end-users, who won't see automake.  But
# > some of the developers are (understandably) a little concerned about the
# > message.  They are working on "fixed" systems; upgrade to later versions
# > of automake may be impractical (unless of "strategic" importance).
# >
# > So could you confirm:
# >
# > 1. that this "bug" is basically usually harmless (indeed, is expected);
# > 2. the action (copying those files into place) is actually successful;
# > 3. its success can be confirmed by repeating the command, which should
# >    produce no errors.
# 
# Yup, I can confirm all 3.
# 
# > Might you have some sort of statement in existence that we could beg,
# > steal or borrow, to reassure developers on our project?
# 
# Not here, sorry.
# 
# > Many thanks again.
# 
# You're welcome,
# 	Gary.

NB: I realise retrospectively that my reference to '"fixed" systems' was
ambiguous: I intended (and fortunately it seems Gary read) "unchangeable",
"set in concrete by higher powers" etc.  (I did not mean "mended"!) 


-- 

:  David Lee                                I.T. Service          :
:  Systems Programmer                       Computer Centre       :
:                                           University of Durham  :
:  http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/            South Road            :
:                                           Durham                :
:  Phone: +44 191 374 2882                  U.K.                  :

_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.community.tummy.com
http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]