Hello, * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 07:44:06PM CET: > > It sounds useful for some (probably not me, though), but I'd be wary > > of the big warning at the start of the autotest section: > > > >>> N.B.: This section describes a feature which is still > >>> stabilizing. Although we believe that Autotest is useful as-is, this > >>> documentation describes an interface which might change in the future: > >>> do not depend upon Autotest without subscribing to the Autoconf mailing > >>> lists. > > Maybe it's time to nuke that paragraph from the next autoconf release. > I think we've built up enough of autoconf's testsuite to promise a > stable autotest interface, and that we can commit to maintaining > backwards compatibility when adding further macros for easier testing. I agree with this. I should add though, in a sort-of self-advertising mood, that you may want to consider that there are still possibly-good changes that would modify the Autotest API somewhat. For example, this AT_CHECK_PROGRESS (which I've been using as AT_CHECK for a while now): http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.patches/cutoff=7562 Anyway. I too think support for Autotest in Automake would be a good thing. Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
