[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sysconf_DATA v. dist_sysconf_DATA

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: sysconf_DATA v. dist_sysconf_DATA
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:35:54 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-01)

* Stepan Kasal wrote on Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:40:18PM CET:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:04:20PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 
> >
> indeed, very interesting read.  So it seems that distcheck would
> catch more bugs if `_build' were not a subdirectory of the expanded
> tarball tree.

It would possibly catch a different set of bugs.  There isn't a strict
inclusion ordering on the set of all imaginable bugs; maybe if bugs are
weighted by the likelihood by which they happen, I haven't looked into
that enough.

> > But I think you used
> >   ../configure
> No.  _I_ called ./configure.  It was `make distcheck' who called
> ../configure, which then led to the above message.

Ah, but then that means you didn't even create the file test.txt in the
first place (and looking back at your description, you did not state
this, so ok).  A simple

would have caught that, though, so your example then would not have
exposed the error that David reported.


reply via email to

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