[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATCH for "make distcheck" failure

From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Subject: Re: PATCH for "make distcheck" failure
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:41:45 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu)

>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <address@hidden> writes:

 >> >> Why don't you simply use DIST_SUBDIRS?
 Bruce> 2.  Even now that I've read it, using it would mean taking over
 Bruce> an automatable chore from automake.
 >> I don't get this.  Which chore should be automated?

 Bruce> Maintaining the contents of DIST_SUBDIRS.  If I make an assignment
 Bruce> to it, then I am responsible for its contents.  I wish to leave it
 Bruce> up to the automake system.

So what's wrong with the last proposal of my previous mail
(using a conditional)?  This seems to suit your requirements.



Odd.  I don't understand how you get duplicates this way.

 Bruce> A better fix is to add back write permissions after the
 Bruce> first (conditional) copy.
 >> I aggree, but that's a secondary issue.  You face this problem
 >> (and others) because you have the same directory listed in both

 Bruce> It's the primary issue.  

Using EXTRA_DIST here isn't a good idea.  Really.  It means
you'll have a schizophrenic package that does not distributes
the same files in all configurations (e.g. the .deps you

Getting the right value in DIST_SUBDIRS (either automatically or
explicitely) is the way to go.  

 Bruce> [...] intended as an extended example [...]

A good reason not to use EXTRA_DIST.


Alexandre Duret-Lutz

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]