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 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 file
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.
[...]
> +@noin
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
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
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,
distribu
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
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
>>> directl
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
> >
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 exp
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
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 attachi
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 2012-02-24 12:10 -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> 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 '
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
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 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
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
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 running dist-hook (and hence prior to generating the
>>
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 t
20 matches
Mail list logo
