|
From: | Ralf Corsepius |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] {maint} distcheck: add support for AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS |
Date: | Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:31:14 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10 |
On 06/15/2011 07:04 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 02:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:On 06/15/2011 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:33:39PM CEST: I would suggest to at least discourage using this in the documentation.... I agree, and I will make the change soon. Maybe I can find a couple of examples of where the AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS could be useful *and* legitimate; which would make my change more meaningful.DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is useful in situations when a plain "./configure" is not meaningful to a source tree, i.e. when a source-tree mandatorily requires some configuration argument.Such a source-tree is violating GNU Coding Standards.
a) DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS makes it compliant.b) There are situations, in which it's technically very hard if not impossible to make automake's vanilla "make distcheck" functional.
My real-world use case: A deep source-tree with about a dozen AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS, with each of those being host-dependent, and the whole source tree only supporting one target at a time.
On the other hand, automake strives to be useful to more than just GCS-compliant packages.
Agreed. Ralf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |