Re: bug#13324: Improvements to "dist" targets

On 01/02/2013 07:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > Yes, I believe quite a few projects have a separately maintained Visual > Studio solution, seeded with handwritten config.h etc, meaning that they > don't require Autotools to build from source on Windows. > Right, I didn't think about that possibility

Re: bug#13324: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs)

On 01/03/2013 01:57 AM, Karl Berry wrote: > OTOH, what about distribution "tarballs" in '.zip' format? They don't > use tar at all ... Time to deprecate them maybe? Is anybody actually > using them? And while at it, what about the even more obscure 'shar' > format? > > FWIW, I

Re: bug#13324: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs)

On 01/03/2013 01:57 AM, Karl Berry wrote: > That is already possible: > > > I see. Given this, I propose merely changing the definition of am__tar > to use variables. Something like: > > am__tar = $(TAR) $(TAR_OPT

Re: bug#13324: Improvements to "dist" targets (was: Re: EXTRA_DIST, directories, tar --exclude-vcs)

On 01/03/2013 01:57 AM, Karl Berry wrote: > > that every tar (except maybe really ancient ones, can't remember, but we > > don't care) supports the -style. > > It would be nice to verify this claim on as much systems as possible > > Certainly POSIX has always required supporting -option

Re: bug#13324: Improvements to "dist" targets

On 2013-01-02 14:04, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 01/02/2013 02:01 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 01/02/2013 02:58 AM, Daniel Herring wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> OTOH, what about distribution "tarballs" in '.zip' format? They don't use tar at all ...