Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:23:48PM CET: > > On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET: > > > > Ok for maint? > > > > > > OK with nits address

Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:23:48PM CET: > On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET: > > > Ok for maint? > > > > OK with nits addressed. Do we have testsuite coverage for this? > > > Not yet, b

Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Sunday 02 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > +pkglib_PROGRAMS = foo > > > +doc_LIBRARIES = libquux.a > > Another nit: can we find less obviously bogus combinations that users > might actually want to use? It is sometimes necessary to put _DATA in > libdir (if only because there is no a

Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Stefano Lattarini
g of @samp{my_execbindir} is not -there by accident: it ensures that @samp{foo} is be installed by -...@samp{make install-exec}. An apparently simpler name, like -...@samp{my_bindir}, would cause @samp{foo} to be installed at -...@samp{make install-data}, which is incorrect. +The @samp{exec} substr

Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
> > +pkglib_PROGRAMS = foo > > +doc_LIBRARIES = libquux.a Another nit: can we find less obviously bogus combinations that users might actually want to use? It is sometimes necessary to put _DATA in libdir (if only because there is no automake primary for the file type). I'm not sure I know of a

Re: [PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2011-01-02 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:57:57AM CET: > Ok for maint? OK with nits addressed. Do we have testsuite coverage for this? Thanks, Ralf > docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couple > > * doc/automake.texi (Uniform): Document the blessed idiom whi

[PATCH] docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couples

2010-12-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Ok for maint? Regards, Stefano -*-*-*- docs: how to work around checks on invalid primary/directory couple * doc/automake.texi (Uniform): Document the blessed idiom which can be used to work around Automake checks on invalid primary/directory couples (such as `lib_PROGRAMS' or `doc_LIBRARIES