This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch]: upgrade to automake 1.11.1


Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Tristan Gingold wrote on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:34:15AM CEST:
>> On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> > * Tristan Gingold wrote on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:20:43AM CEST:
>> >> I have regenerated files using 1.11.1
>> >
>> > I'd have preferred to avoid version churn between binutils and GCC,
>> > at this GCC stage, for a purely administrative issue.
>>
>> Why not updating GCC ?
>
> Because it is in Stage 4, and it doesn't use the 'dist' rule either.
> Hmm, it contains it in some places as dead code though, where neither
> 'no-dist' nor 'cygnus' options are enabled.  Oh well.  Guess better to
> upgrade src and GCC at the same time then.
>
>> Can you clarify briefly the 'administrative issue' ?
>
> I'd call gnu.org having a too-strict rule an administrative issue.

Distributing code built with unpatched automake is normally
serious enough that I feel the current upload-check is appropriate.
However, if there are more projects like binutils that use the no-dist
option, and they can demonstrate that upgrading is not feasible
(I'd be surprised), then it may well make sense to relax it to
accommodate them.

Hmm... I tried using no-dist, and the resulting Makefile
contains no distdir rule at all, so I can't see how it would
trigger the check.

Perhaps this is a feature new to automake-1.11a, and your 1.11
does not elide the distdir rule when no-dist is used.
Or you have a subdir-project which *does* have an offending
dist-related rule.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]