Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Ben Pfaff wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:33:14PM CEST:
>> As an alternative, could Automake provide an API that allows
>> users to say "if feature X is supported, then expand this
>> configure.ac code"? For example:
>>
>> AM_FEATURE_PREREQ([color-tests],
>>
Hello Ben,
* Ben Pfaff wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:33:14PM CEST:
> As an alternative, could Automake provide an API that allows
> users to say "if feature X is supported, then expand this
> configure.ac code"? For example:
>
> AM_FEATURE_PREREQ([color-tests],
> [AM_INI
Hello Roger,
* Roger Leigh wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:40:18AM CEST:
>
> An initial implementation follows. This works, but it does need
> further refinement (error checking, for example). And probably
> review by a git expert. I'm sure other people can make it much
> nicer, but this hope
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> I think Automake should provide an API to allow users to say "if the
> Automake version is >= X, then expand this configure.ac code". I think
> that would be general enough (it could use Automake conditionals to
> adjust Makefile.am files, it could check for >= X and no
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
ÿÿ distribute generated release tarball
However, the "distribute release tarball" step is becoming less and
less relevant with the advent of git.
The "release tarball" step is always needed since software development
is protected by copyright laws so w
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:07:39AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This is a rough outline of what I'd like to do (unless someone beats
> me to it!)
>
> • Add a dist-git option and Makefile target.
> This will cause $distdir to be injected into git, rather than just
> calling tar as for other git
