Re: stamp-h* and make distcheck

[Ralf Corsepius]

Am Don, 2001-11-08 um 17.56 schrieb Akim Demaille: 
> >>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> 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