On 08/22/2012 02:32 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 22/08/2012 14:23, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>>>> True, but in the make dist case, automake has otherwise no business in
>>>> parsing the dist-format options.
>>>>
>> But IMHO it makes sense to keep the need/ability to recognize those options
>> "segregated" in '_process_option_list', rather than spread throughout the
>> code base.
>
> It is a bit ugly that _process_option_list has to know about the
> no-dist-gzip option in order to give a warning. This way, I can give a
> superior error message if somebody specifies no-dist-xz.
>
That option would be just flatly rejected by mainline Automake as well,
so no need to worry.
> But if you added support for another dist-fooz option you wouldn't have
> to touch automake.in nor lib/Automake at all.
>
I wouldn't have to that now either -- the 'dist-(.*)' regex would take
care of it automatically. I'd just have to edit 'lib/am/distcheck.mk'.
>> The rest of the code (whether in the automake script or in
>> the generated makefiles) should only be aware that "such and such dist
>> formats have been specified through means other than the AM_DIST_FORMATS
>> variable", not needing to worry about the details of such specifications
>> ("dist-xz has been given in AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, and no-dist-gzip has been
>> given in AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS").
>
> That's indeed the point of patch 1/2.
>
Which I still have gripes about ;-)
Regards,
Stefano
