Re: PATCH for "make distcheck" failure

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz <duret_g at lrde dot epita dot fr>]

>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <bkorb@veritas.com> writes:

 >> >> Why don't you simply use DIST_SUBDIRS?
 Bruce> 2.  Even now that I've read it, using it would mean taking over
 Bruce> an automatable chore from automake.
 >> 
 >> I don't get this.  Which chore should be automated?

 Bruce> Maintaining the contents of DIST_SUBDIRS.  If I make an assignment
 Bruce> to it, then I am responsible for its contents.  I wish to leave it
 Bruce> up to the automake system.

So what's wrong with the last proposal of my previous mail
(using a conditional)?  This seems to suit your requirements.

[...]

 Bruce> SUBDIRS = @MAYBE_BAR@
 Bruce> EXTRA_DIST = @NOT_MAYBE_BAR@

Odd.  I don't understand how you get duplicates this way.

 Bruce> A better fix is to add back write permissions after the
 Bruce> first (conditional) copy.
 >> 
 >> I aggree, but that's a secondary issue.  You face this problem
 >> (and others) because you have the same directory listed in both
 >> SUBDIRS and EXTRA_DIST.

 Bruce> It's the primary issue.  

Using EXTRA_DIST here isn't a good idea.  Really.  It means
you'll have a schizophrenic package that does not distributes
the same files in all configurations (e.g. the .deps you
mentioned).

Getting the right value in DIST_SUBDIRS (either automatically or
explicitely) is the way to go.  

 Bruce> [...] intended as an extended example [...]

A good reason not to use EXTRA_DIST.

[...]

-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz