I think it would make Automake less convenient, which is why I chose
against it, but that's of course only my opinion.
I think the potential for confusion outweighs by far the trivial
convenience, but that's of course only my opinion too.
And yes, the only other sane semantics IMVHO w
Hello Karl,
* Karl Berry wrote on Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:14:54AM CET:
> according to NEWS it was actually deprecated in version 1.8.
>
> So maybe it's time to remove it, instead of adding the warning (as Ralf
> so recently did)?
Yes, the warning was added very recently, in 1.10.2 only, as a
according to NEWS it was actually
deprecated in version 1.8.
So maybe it's time to remove it, instead of adding the warning (as Ralf
so recently did)? In this case, it seems to me the resulting
incompatibility (of not adding the file) is actually desirable because
it will force the autho
Hi Karl, Peter,
* Peter Johansson wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:24:18AM CET:
> Karl Berry wrote:
>> I just learned that in some circumstances automake will insert a COPYING
>> file if it's missing (albeit with a warning), e.g., at make dist? (I
>> didn't look into the precise details.)
Never
Hi Karl,
Karl Berry wrote:
I just learned that in some circumstances automake will insert a COPYING
file if it's missing (albeit with a warning), e.g., at make dist? (I
didn't look into the precise details.)
This is a very old feature and according to NEWS it was actually
deprecated in vers
I just learned that in some circumstances automake will insert a COPYING
file if it's missing (albeit with a warning), e.g., at make dist? (I
didn't look into the precise details.)
I expect there's probably been plenty of discussion about it that I'm
unaware of, but to my naive eyes, this is simp
