On 21 September 2010 14:55, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Reuben Thomas writes:
>
>> On 21 September 2010 13:38, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Reuben Thomas writes:
>>>
1. The example Makefile.am code has "lib/" rather than "src/" in the
path to the source code, even though it's clearly the p
Reuben Thomas writes:
> On 21 September 2010 13:38, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Reuben Thomas writes:
>>
>>> 1. The example Makefile.am code has "lib/" rather than "src/" in the
>>> path to the source code, even though it's clearly the package source
>>> that is to be analysed, not the gnulib lib
On 21 September 2010 13:38, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Reuben Thomas writes:
>
>> 1. The example Makefile.am code has "lib/" rather than "src/" in the
>> path to the source code, even though it's clearly the package source
>> that is to be analysed, not the gnulib library code.
>
> This is because
Reuben Thomas writes:
> 1. The example Makefile.am code has "lib/" rather than "src/" in the
> path to the source code, even though it's clearly the package source
> that is to be analysed, not the gnulib library code.
This is because it is an example, and the projects I used it for had the
"rea
1. The example Makefile.am code has "lib/" rather than "src/" in the
path to the source code, even though it's clearly the package source
that is to be analysed, not the gnulib library code.
2. In the generated report, all the filenames have the first character
of the path missing ("rc/" rather th
