On Thursday 01 September 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hello automakers, and sorry for the delay. > > References: > > > > [SNIP] > > > > There is, obviously, a risk doing this way, as mentioned above in this > > > thread, because if I'm not careful I may release a tarball with missing > > > m4 files. Would distcheck detect a missing m4 file, or would it be > > > possible to modify distcheck so it could warn about this case? > > > > > I think improving distcheck to catch such an error would be worthwhile. > > > OK, I've managed to come up with a test case that demonstrates how one can > use a "distcheck-hook" to diagnose this kind of errors. I'm not sure if > this should integrated into the automake-generated distcheck recipe proper > (maybe only when a new automake option, say "check-m4-distribution", is > used?), or if we should report Peter's description of the potential > problems with `--install' in the manual, and add our distcheck-hook there > in a new example (to be kept synced with the new testcase). > > Opinions? > > Regards, > Stefano > I've recooked the patch to take advantage of the recent improvements in maint w.r.t. `acdir' overriding (see commit `v1.11-441-g30f99cb' "aclocal: more granularity in acdir overriding"). Since I was at it, I've increased coverage a bit to ensure that the proposed idiom also catch outdated .m4 files, not only missing ones. Attached is the patch that I've pushed (to maint). Now we should only decide whether to document the idiom, or integrate it into distcheck proper. Regards, Stefano