Re: [PATCH 4/9] Warnings win over strictness in AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:11:27AM CET:
> [Ralf Wildenhues]
> > > >  If some code later calls it like
> > > >   process_option_list (first-set-of-options);
> > > >   process_option_list (second-set-of-options);
> > > > 
> > > > then things will go wrong again.  I suspect that it will mean that
> > > >   AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([foreign -Wno-portability])
> > > >   AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = gnu
> > > > 
> > > > won't do what we want.  Hmm.  What exactly is it that we want to happen
> > > > in this case?  Should gnu override -Wno-portability if specified in a
> > > > (to-be) higher order place?
> > > >
> [Stefano Lattarini]
> > > I assumed without saying that yes, this was to be the intended behaviour.
> > > And I still think it should be.  Sorry for not having been explicit about
> > > that before.
> [Ralf Wildenhues]
> > 
> > I agree that it should be, but this, too, should be documented (in
> > autoconf.texi and maybe also NEWS) and tested, when it works.
> > 
> What about the attached patch?  It also adds a test for another situation
> I hadn't thought about previously.
> 
> OK to apply the patch in a new commit between [PATCH 2/9] and [PATCH 3/9]?

Well yes, but why omit the documentation bits that I asked for?
(efficient communication, and all that)

Thanks,
Ralf

> Subject: [PATCH] More tests on warnings and strictness.
> 
> * tests/warnings-strictness-interactions.test: New test.
> * tests/warnings-unknown.test: Likewise.
> * tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Update.