Re: question about no-dist patch

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 11:39, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>  Tom> I wonder if it makes sense to require `no-dist' to be set in
>  Tom> configure.in, and not in some particular Makefile.  Thoughts?
> 
>  Tom> The idea is, it doesn't make sense to omit the dist rules from a
>  Tom> single Makefile, only from an entire tree.
> 
> Can't we imagine a case where someone needs a convenient way to
> write his/her own dist machinery in a subdirectory, and benefit
> from Automake's dist in other directories?

Not quite what you are looking for, but theoretically, it could be
possible to mix custom "make dist" rules with automake "make dist" rules
across config-subdirs, e.g. something similar to this:

configure.ac (w/ automake "make dist" rules)
sub1/configure.ac (automake generated w/ no-dist and custom rules)
sub2/configure.ac (w/ automake "make dist" rules)

IMO, this raises the question if "no-dist" should add a stub "dist:" to
corresponding toplevel Makefile (here sub1/Makefile), or if automake
shall emit a warning if a toplevel Makefile.am of a "no-dist"
source-tree doesn't contain a "dist:"-rule.


Ralf