Re: [Chicken-hackers] address@hidden: Re: 4.8.0 release?]

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:30:49 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Mario Domenech Goulart <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] address@hidden: Re: 4.8.0 release?]
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:12:35 -0400
>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Mario Domenech Goulart <address@hidden>
>>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] address@hidden: Re: 4.8.0 release?]
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:46:37 -0400
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:03:40 -0400 John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  # for cygwin
>>>>>> -test -f ../cygchicken-0.dll && cp ../cygchicken-0.dll .
>>>>>> +if test -f ../cygchicken-0.dll; then
>>>>>> +    cp ../cygchicken-0.dll .
>>>>>> +    cp ../cygchicken-0.dll reverser/tags/1.0
>>>>>> +fi
>>>>>> +mv ../cygchicken-0.dll ../cygchicken-0.dll_
>>>>>
>>>>> All these copies and moves, including the last, need to be inside the
>>>>> scope of the "if test -f", or it's not idempotent.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, John.  Thanks for noticing that.  Attached is an updated version
>>>> of the patch.
>>>> 
>>>> I tested it on master, and I could "make ... spotless install check"
>>>> successfully.
>>>
>>> Does that mean the deployment test succeeded?
>> 
>> Yes.
>
> Excellent. Shall I sign it off and apply it to master?

It seems to work for me.  It would be nice if we could get at least one
more successful case. :-) But if you are in a hurry, just push it (it
can always be reverted anyway).  As far as I can see, it doesn't break
things.


Best wishes.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario