[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#69908: dist-no-built-sources vs. no-dist-built-sources vs. dist-buil
From: |
Jens Geyer |
Subject: |
bug#69908: dist-no-built-sources vs. no-dist-built-sources vs. dist-built-sources |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:38:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird |
Hi,
I have seen https://debbugs.gnu.org/49317 and the two commits 13659a7
and especially 314c55f. I also recognized there is a test case to test
for the correct behaviour.
Nevertheless I think there is something wrong here. I tried to make it
work yesterday via AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS (tried both root dir and the
affected folder) as well as via AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, neither of them
produced the expected Makefile. No matter which way I tried, I always
ended up with
distdir: $(BUILT_SOURCES)
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) distdir-am
which, according to both the code in lib/am/distdir.am and the docs
should not happen, if that option is set.
After looking at these commits again I noticed that although the option
is named "no-dist-built-sources" (see lib/Automake/Options.pm and the
docs), the code in bin/automake.in to initialize the DIST_BUILT_SOURCES
flag tests against sth. else:
'DIST_BUILT_SOURCES' => !! option 'dist-built-sources',
Which raised the question, whether that feature really works as
intended, or if it could be broken since 314c55f and the test might not
work properly for some strange reason?
What am I overlooking? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks,
JensG
PS:The headline refers to the three different variants of that option as
found in code and commit messages.
- bug#69908: dist-no-built-sources vs. no-dist-built-sources vs. dist-built-sources,
Jens Geyer <=