Hello,
* Peter Johansson wrote on Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:48:44PM CEST:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >I have not verified if referencing a file outside of the source
> >tree really works properly.
> >
> My experience is that inclusion of an external file will be ignored
> by Automake, in other words
Hi Bob and Roger,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I have not verified if referencing a file outside of the source tree
really works properly.
My experience is that inclusion of an external file will be ignored by
Automake, in other words, the include statement ends up in the Makefile.
It might still
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
I hadn't come across this before; I didn't realise it had Makefile.am
fragments as well. That's perfectly OK by me.
How does one extract these bits into a project's Makefile.am
automatically? Or is it just a matter of copying and pasting the
needed bits
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
The "release tarball" step is always needed since software
development is protected by copyright laws so we need a step which
is a equivalent to publishing the work. A release branch or tag in
a live repository will not be compelling enough in a court of
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 07:53:46PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Roger,
>
> * Roger Leigh wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:40:18AM CEST:
> >
> > An initial implementation follows. This works, but it does need
> > further refinement (error checking, for example). And probably
> > review
* Roger Leigh wrote on Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:13:21PM CEST:
> Additionally, VCSes don't typically store the results of "make dist",
> only the source for that. Due to changing tool versions over the
> years, you can get in a situation where you can no longer rebootstrap
> checkouts of old version
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:46:52AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> >ÿÿ distribute generated release tarball
> >
> >However, the "distribute release tarball" step is becoming less and
> >less relevant with the advent of git.
>
> The "release tarball" ste
Hello Roger,
* Roger Leigh wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:40:18AM CEST:
>
> An initial implementation follows. This works, but it does need
> further refinement (error checking, for example). And probably
> review by a git expert. I'm sure other people can make it much
> nicer, but this hope
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
ÿÿ distribute generated release tarball
However, the "distribute release tarball" step is becoming less and
less relevant with the advent of git.
The "release tarball" step is always needed since software development
is protected by copyright laws so w
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:07:39AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This is a rough outline of what I'd like to do (unless someone beats
> me to it!)
>
> • Add a dist-git option and Makefile target.
> This will cause $distdir to be injected into git, rather than just
> calling tar as for other git
Hello Roger,
* Roger Leigh wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:07:39AM CEST:
> What can automake do?
>
> This is a rough outline of what I'd like to do (unless someone beats
> me to it!)
>
> • Add a dist-git option and Makefile target.
> This will cause $distdir to be injected into git, rather th
Hi folks,
There's no patch for this yet, I'm afraid. I just wanted to throw
out some ideas I had relating to managing releases with automake,
and integrating this with a git workflow. Sorry if it's a bit
rambling.
I've long been using automake, and I've always used "make dist[check]"
as the end
12 matches
Mail list logo
