Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE_DEFINES

[Christopher James Lahey <clahey ximian com>]

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:41, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> I'm not sure the ENABLE_WERROR is the right way to do things. We already
> have the GNOME_COMPILE_WARNINGS macro to enable people to set this kind
> of stuff -- although if you only want it in maintainer mode you have to
> do your own testing. Some modules do this by testing if they are
> building from CVS or the macro version number if odd or whatever; it's
> not clear that this is something best triggered by maintainer mode.
> Adding another way to do the same thing (I assume people are meant to
> include @ENABLE_WERROR@ in Makefile.am where appropriate, right?) just
> provides a loaded gun with foot-autoseek enabled. Now you have to
> remember not to use GNOME_COMPILE_WARNINGS if you use
> AM_MAINTAINER_MODE_DEFINES otherwise all sorts of interesting confusion
> will result.

So, the thing is that GNOME_COMPILE_WARNINGS is to allow the person
compiling to set the warning level.  Unfortunately, at least in the
past, some projects put -Werror in by hand.  My goal here was to allow
people who want to put -Werror in a way to do so without breaking
releases.

However, if this is no longer an issue, I'll drop it.  If it is, I'd
like to find some solution to it, but if you believe that this isn't the
place, that's fine.  In either case, I'll remove ENABLE_WERROR.

> So my preference would be to see ENABLE_WERROR backed out. And could you
> namespace the macro a bit better? Maybe GNOME_MAINTAINER_MODE_DEFINES or
> something so that looking at it it is clear it has nothing to do with
> the Automake maintainers' default action for maintainer mode.

Yeah someone else pointed out the namespacing thing too.  Sorry about
that.  Both of these changes committed.

Thanks,
    Chris