Hello Benoit, * Benoit SIGOURE wrote on Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:00:42PM CEST: > On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> >> Well, the user should be able to override the `check' target if he so >> wants. If it's possible to reliably warn without giving false failures >> without a lot of work, then it would help. But often such checks turn >> out to be rather expensive in both developer time and automake run time. > > When you put `check' in `check_SCRIPTS' you're not directly willing to > override the `check' target. `check' can happen to be generated, or it may > not. I think it would be relevant to warn users that putting `check' in > `check_SCRIPTS' can lead to infinite make recursion, and mention that in > the docs.
Sure, feel free to submit a patch (to automake-patches). >>> Maybe something along these lines would be better: [...] >>> @@ -6826,8 +6826,10 @@ sub am_primary_prefixes ($$@) >>> # Handle `where_HOW' variable magic. Does all lookups, generates >>> # install code, and possibly generates code to define the primary >>> -# variable. The first argument is the name of the .am file to munge, >>> -# the second argument is the primary variable (e.g. HEADERS), and all >>> +# variable. The first argument can be one of: '-noextra', '-candist', >>> +# or '-defaultdist'. FIXME: Document these options. >>> +# The following argument is the name of the .am file to munge, >>> +# the following argument is the primary variable (e.g. HEADERS), and all >>> # subsequent arguments are possible installation locations. >> >> Sorry, but I don't understand at all what you're trying to say here. > > Hmm sorry, it's just that the documentation of that function doesn't > mention that the first argument can be an option such as '-candist' and it > disturbed me when wandering through the code, somehow. Ah, ok. I failed to grasp that your proposed patch had no relevance to the infinite recursion (other than the fact that you happened to stumble upon it at the same time ;-). Well, I'd prefer the function documentation to be addressed in a separate patch, and I'd even more prefer if the patch reduced the number of FIXMEs instead of increasing it. :-) Cheers, Ralf
