[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sysconf_DATA v. dist_sysconf_DATA

From: David Everly
Subject: Re: sysconf_DATA v. dist_sysconf_DATA
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:46:23 -0700

On 11/8/06, Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:29:39AM -0700, David Everly wrote:
> I should have used this (because test.txt is not constructed):
>   dist_sysconf_DATA = $(top_srcdir)/test.txt
> However, I've regularly run 'make distcheck' and it gives no error
> with the original sysconf_DATA.  How can this be?

`make distcheck' creates a tarball, unpacks it to a new directory and
runs build and install there.  This implies that test.txt was
installed during the process.  So it seems it was available.

When you run `make dist' with the old setup, is test.txt packed in
the resulting tarball?

This is the curious part, test.txt is _not_ packed in the resulting
tarball, and if I run configure, make install directly it fails.

Perhaps the file was mentioned in EXTRA_DIST, or another list of
distributed files.  In that case it would not be strictly necessary
to use `dist_sysconf_DATA' instead of `sysconf_DATA'.

I put together a test case before sending my email, the only line in
the one is the one I gave containing test.txt.

But in most cases, it is more readable to use `dist_sysconf_DATA'.

I have no issue using `dist_sysconf_DATA', but I was hoping not to
have to do a separate build on the resulting tarball beyond what make
distcheck does, so I could find other such errors.

reply via email to

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