Re: [PATCH] {maint} distcheck: add support for AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 15 June 2011, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:33:39PM CEST:
> 
> >> I would suggest to at least discourage using this in the documentation.
> >>
> > ... I agree, and I will make the change soon.  Maybe I can find a couple of
> > examples of where the AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS could be useful *and*
> > legitimate; which would make my change more meaningful.
> 
> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is useful in situations when a plain 
> "./configure" is not meaningful to a source tree, i.e. when a 
> source-tree mandatorily requires some configuration argument.
> 
> Ralf
> 
The point Ralf (Wildenhues) was making is that package developers should
be advised against making their package's `configure' mandatorily require
any flag *in order to work*.  Still, IMHO it's acceptable that some
configuration flag(s) might be needed to enable optional features, in
case the `configure' script is not yet smart enuogh to work out a sensible
default.  With this idea in mind, I've written the attached patch.
Comments welcome!

Regards,
  Stefano

From a13622100e7e9b0c1dcc6ed6fd669875a2b3af12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
From: Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:50:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] docs: AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is for corner cases

* doc/automake.texi (Checking the Distribution): Explain that the
developers should take care of making their code buildable without
requiring any special configure options, so that in general
AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS shouldn't be used.  Give an example
of where its use is legitimate.
---
 ChangeLog         |    9 +++++++++
 doc/automake.texi |   14 ++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index f18647a..0b1ca59 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2011-06-15  Stefano Lattarini  <address@hidden>
+
+       docs: AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS is for corner cases
+       * doc/automake.texi (Checking the Distribution): Explain that the
+       developers should take care of making their code buildable without
+       requiring any special configure options, so that in general
+       AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS shouldn't be used.  Give an example
+       of where its use is legitimate.
+
 2011-06-13  Stefano Lattarini  <address@hidden>
 
        news: update w.r.t. introduction of AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS
diff --git a/doc/automake.texi b/doc/automake.texi
index b3aecfc..dacf3cf 100644
--- a/doc/automake.texi
+++ b/doc/automake.texi
@@ -8426,6 +8426,20 @@ to supply additional flags to @command{configure}, 
define them in the
 provided there by defining the @code{DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS} variable,
 on the command line when invoking @command{make}.
 
+Note that developers should take care of making their code buildable
+without requiring any special configure option; thus, in general, you
+shouldn't define @code{AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS}.  However, there
+might be few scenarios in which the use of this variable is justified.
+For example, assume a package comes with some slow and heavy tests, maybe
+with non-standard requirements too (e.g., Valgrind).  These tests are
+run at @samp{make check} time @emph{only} if they have been explicitly
+activated at @command{configure} time, let's say with a
address@hidden flag.  In this case, the developer
+might legitimately define @code{AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS} to
address@hidden to ensure that these tests are run by
+default at @samp{make distcheck} time too, thus ensuring a greater
+coverage.
+
 @trindex distcheck-hook
 If the @code{distcheck-hook} rule is defined in your top-level
 @file{Makefile.am}, then it will be invoked by @code{distcheck} after
-- 
1.7.2.3