Re: Check for deprecated automake configure.in (wishlist #708482)

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

On 2013-08-22 00:08, Gautier Minster wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thank you for your comments, and sorry I took a while to answer, I got
> sidetracked with !($debian-related) matters.
> 

It is quite all right, I needed some time to finish the perltidy
migration myself.  :)

> Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:45:07AM +0200 -- Niels Thykier :
>> It looks pretty good; I have interleaved my remarks in the patch below.
>>  The only thing missing is a test for it.  Getting started on that
>> should basically be a matter of:
>>  [...]
>> This should fail if my quick-test is correct and your check works.  To
>> have it succeed, you have to update the t/tests/automake-general/tags
>> file to contain the (sorted) lintian output.
> 
> I added the test, and indeed, it failed at first, then passed when I
> added the tag to the test.
> 

Great.  :)

>>> +Severity: pedantic
>> I think it should be at least a wishlist and possibly even normal.
> 
> I changed it to wishlist, but I don't feel very strongly one way or the
> other :)
> 


>>> +Certainty: possible
>> This /might/ be certain.  I believe we use it as a indicator of how
>> likely a false-positive is (i.e. if it only have false-negatives, then I
>> believe we would call it certain).
> 
> I've changed it to certain, because:
>   - Assuming automake is used in the package build, a 'configure.in'
>     will always trigger a warning from automake, even if there's a
>     'configure.ac' right beside it.
>   - I guess it's unlikely to have a 'Makefile.am' and not use automake.
> 
> So a false positive doesn't look very probable.
> 

Exactly my line of thought.  :)

>> The code itself looks good at first glance.  There are some minor
>> stylistic things, but I believe we are currently considering to use
>> perltidy.  Hopefully soon such things will be a thing of the past.  :)
>>
>> The perltidy rules suggested are available at [1] in case you want to
>> try it.  :)
> 
> Thanks, I used your perltidyrc. (I usually like my brackets to be on a
> line of their own, and I inadvertently let one get away with it!)
> 

Your patch seems to follow the revised perltidy rules, so its all okay.  :)

> I attached the new patch.
> 
> Best regards,
> 

Merged into master.  I did a minor change to argument handling
(undef'ing unused arguments in sub run) and revised the tag description
a bit.

Thanks for your contribution; I hope to see more patches from you in the
future.  :)

~Niels