tags 10878 patch
close 10878
thanks
On 02/25/2012 08:25 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'll close this report by tomorrow if there are no further objection.
Bug closed.
Thanks,
Stefano
On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
least a documentation one).
As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
on make distcheck a little. I will apply soonish to master if
On 02/24/2012 09:36 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
I use the rule that no part of the build should write to srcdir, ever:
so it should be possible to do a successful VPATH build with a
maintainer-cleaned, read-only srcdir.
Note that automake does not honour this expectation (for example,
distributed
On 02/25/2012 01:41 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
least a documentation one).
As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
on make
On 02/25/2012 01:41 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
least a documentation one).
As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
on make
Hi Stefano,
One comment below:
On 2012-02-25 14:39 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[...]
And here is the documentation about the fact that a dist-hook should be ready
to deal with read-only files. I will apply the attached patch soonish to
master
if there is no objection.
[...]
+@noindent
On 02/25/2012 07:10 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Hi Nick, and thanks for all the feedback.
One comment below:
On 2012-02-25 14:39 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[...]
And here is the documentation about the fact that a dist-hook should be ready
to deal with read-only files. I
severity 10878 wishlist
tags 10878 wontfix
close 10878
thanks
On 02/24/2012 08:09 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Automake should at least add user write permissions to all files in
distdir prior to running dist-hook (and hence prior to generating the
distribution tarball).
I disagree; in case the
On 2012-02-24 18:37 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[...]
On 02/24/2012 08:09 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Automake should at least add user write permissions to all files in
distdir prior to running dist-hook (and hence prior to generating the
distribution tarball).
I disagree; in case the
On 2012-02-24 19:19 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 06:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-02-24 18:37 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[...]
On 02/24/2012 08:09 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Automake should at least add user write permissions to all files in
distdir prior to
On 02/24/2012 11:34 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
But it's the package that expects its distributed files to be writable
that is assuming too much; if such package wants its expectation to
safely hold, it should add something like this in its 'dist-hook':
find $(distdir) -exec chmod u+w '{}' ';'
On 02/24/2012 07:34 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-02-24 19:19 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
But it's the package that expects its distributed files to be writable
that is assuming too much; if such package wants its expectation to
safely hold, it should add something like this in its
On 02/24/2012 08:25 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
(I'll update my patch to have it test also such usage).
And here it is the updated patch. I will push it shortly if there is
no objection.
Regards,
Stefano
On 02/24/2012 08:35 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 08:25 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
(I'll update my patch to have it test also such usage).
And here it is the updated patch. I will push it shortly if there is
no objection.
Maybe it would have been nice actually attaching the
On 02/24/2012 08:34 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-02-24 12:10 -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
Which is _why_ 'make distcheck' intentionally checks that 'make dist'
from a read-only source tarball will accurately create a tarball.
It checks that it creates a tarball, but as I
On 2012-02-24 20:25 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 07:34 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-02-24 19:19 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
But it's the package that expects its distributed files to be writable
that is assuming too much; if such package wants its expectation to
On 2012-02-24 20:39 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 08:35 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 08:25 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
(I'll update my patch to have it test also such usage).
And here it is the updated patch. I will push it shortly if there is
no
On 02/24/2012 09:15 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-02-24 20:25 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/24/2012 07:34 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
(I find it is generally good practice for -hook and -local
targets to use prerequisites with commands instead of putting commands
directly in those
18 matches
Mail list logo
