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 targets) >>> >> JFTR, I agree. > > Interestingly, I find no mention at all of this trick in the automake > manual. > Because it's not a trick, but a matter of preference :-) Preference that we apparently share, but which doesn't necessarily need not to be shared by other people.
> I'm sure I read about it in _some_ manual, I wonder which it was? > No idea here, sorry. > So let's actually put some stuff in Makefile.am to demonstrate something > closer to the problem I'm having. > > % cat >Makefile.am <<'EOF' > EXTRA_DIST = foo > > dist-hook: > echo bar > $(distdir)/foo > EOF > > % cat >foo <<'EOF' > EOF > > % autoreconf -is > % ./configure && make distcheck > [...] > make \ > top_distdir="test-1.0" distdir="test-1.0" \ > dist-hook > make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/testcase/test-1.0/_build' > echo bar > test-1.0/foo > /bin/sh: test-1.0/foo: Permission denied > Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very least a documentation one). I'm thus re-opening this bug report. >> To stress this again: if *you* had removed the executable bit from your >> test scripts, would you blame it on automake if "make distcheck" stopped >> working? I don't think so. > > No, but if "make distcheck" was doing the removal, as is the case here, > then I *would* blame automake. > Fair enough. Maybe we should explicitly document the "make distcheck" behaviour in more details (including your example) ... Thanks, Stefano
