Re: sysconf_DATA v. dist_sysconf_DATA

[Stepan Kasal]

Hi Ralf,

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:04:20PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * David Everly wrote on Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 01:52:12PM CET:
> > On 11/9/06, Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >well, I created configure.ac and Makefile.am:
> [...]
> > This is almost identical to what I tried.
> 
> Thanks for the example.  So this is the same issue as discussed in this
> thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2006-09/msg00014.html

indeed, very interesting read.  So it seems that distcheck would
catch more bugs if `_build' were not a subdirectory of the expanded
tarball tree.

Currently  we have $(distdir), $(distdir)/_build, $(distdir)/_inst.
What about having _dist/$(distdir), _build, and _inst all in the top
level directory?  Or all under _check?

> > >and the distcheck failed with the expected message:
> > >
> > >make[1]: *** No rule to make target `../test.txt', needed by `all-am'.  
> > >Stop.
...
> > >Then I run:
> > >
> > >autoreconf -i
> > >./configure
> > >make distcheck
> 
> But I think you used
>   ../configure

No.  _I_ called ./configure.  It was `make distcheck' who called
../configure, which then led to the above message.

Stepan