[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Improvements to "dist" targets
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: Improvements to "dist" targets |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:01:57 +0100 |
On 01/02/2013 02:58 AM, Daniel Herring wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> OTOH, what about distribution "tarballs" in '.zip' format? They don't
>> use tar at all ... Time to deprecate them maybe? Is anybody actually
>> using them? And while at it, what about the even more obscure 'shar'
>> format?
>
> While I haven't manipulated a shar file in years, but zip is still
> the dominant archive format on MS platforms.
>
While this is absolutely true, my point is that it's not a format truly
used or required for distribution tarballs. If you are going to compile
an Automake-based package from source on MS Windows, you'll need either
MinGW/MSYS or Cygwin, and AFAICS both those environment comes with
working tar and gzip programs.
Or is there something that I'm missing?
> It is quite common (and a good practice) for a project to distribute
> \n newlines in a tarball and \r\n newlines in a zip archive.
>
But the Automake "dist-*" recipes don't do this, so you'd need to roll
your own rule if you want to support this use case (such a rule could
of course leverage on the "distdir" Automake rule to do much of the
work).
Regards,
Stefano
Re: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs), Karl Berry, 2013/01/02
Re: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs), Karl Berry, 2013/01/02
Re: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs), Karl Berry, 2013/01/02