Am Don, 2001-11-08 um 17.56 schrieb Akim Demaille: > >>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ralf> If using AM_CONFIG_HEADERS located in subdirectories, make > Ralf> distcheck breaks because of not correctly handling stamp*-files. > > Ralf> .. make[1]: Leaving directory `stamp-test-0.0/=build' ERROR: > Ralf> files left after distclean: ./include/stamp-h1 make: *** > Ralf> [distcheck] Error 1 > > Ralf> This is with autoconf/cvs from subversion as of this morning and > Ralf> automake/CVS from cygnus/sources as of Sunday. > > Ralf> Example enclosed below. > > Thanks for the excellent bug report! Your tarball is precious. > > But did this ever worked? I tried with 1.5, and it fails the same > way. I haven't tried :-)
> The problem, AFAICS is that you don't have a include/Makefile.am, > which is probably where Automake would have cleaned it. Adding one > makes it succeed. Well, partial (and known to be immature and incomplete) support of deep configuration directories was one of "advertized features" of automake-1.5 :) Therefore, I have started to systematically exploit these features, in particular to handle headers-only-subdirectory hierarchies, primarily because this avoids the need of having a Makefile.am in each subdirectory. [In one large source tree, I recently emliminated ~40 Makefile.ams and reduced the required diskspace by 500kB to 1MB, this way.] So, on one hand, your recommendation in this particular case means voiding one of the features of automake >= 1.5, for me, OTOH - "It's only make distcheck" ;) > It turns out I don't like either the way distclean works. IMHO, what > is created by config.status is to be removed by config.status, and in > particular from the top level Makefile.am. > > So I'm not willing to handle this issue now, but to delay it: I will > equip 2.53's config.status with --clean, (something texi2dvi should do > too IMHO), and have Automake next generation, relying on 2.53, stop > cleaning up config.status's files, but ask it to do it. > > Is it OK for everyone? Well, I am not pleased with your decision, but don't have a problem with it, either - It's only "make distcheck" ;) Ralf
