GNU bug report logs - #10878
"make dist" with read-only srcdir generates read-only tarball

Previous Next

Full log

Message #56 received at 10878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Nick Bowler <nbowler <at> elliptictech.com>
Cc: 10878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>,
	automake-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10878: "make dist" with read-only srcdir generates read-only
	tarball
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:11:34 +0100

On 02/24/2012 09:15 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>
> On 2012-02-24 20:25 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> On 02/24/2012 07:34 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>
>>> (I find it is generally good practice for -hook and -local
>>> targets to use prerequisites with commands instead of putting commands
>>> directly in those targets)
>>>
>> JFTR, I agree.
> 
> Interestingly, I find no mention at all of this trick in the automake
> manual.
>
Because it's not a trick, but a matter of preference :-)  Preference that
we apparently share, but which doesn't necessarily need not to be shared
by other people.

> I'm sure I read about it in _some_ manual, I wonder which it was?
> 
No idea here, sorry.

> So let's actually put some stuff in Makefile.am to demonstrate something
> closer to the problem I'm having.
> 
>   % cat >Makefile.am <<'EOF'
> EXTRA_DIST = foo
> 
> dist-hook:
> 	echo bar > $(distdir)/foo
> EOF
> 
>   % cat >foo <<'EOF'
> EOF
> 
>   % autoreconf -is
>   % ./configure && make distcheck
>   [...]
>   make  \
>     top_distdir="test-1.0" distdir="test-1.0" \
>     dist-hook
>   make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/testcase/test-1.0/_build'
>   echo bar > test-1.0/foo
>   /bin/sh: test-1.0/foo: Permission denied
>
Ah, this is a better example.  Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
least a documentation one).  I'm thus re-opening this bug report.

>> To stress this again: if *you* had removed the executable bit from your
>> test scripts, would you blame it on automake if "make distcheck" stopped
>> working?  I don't think so.
> 
> No, but if "make distcheck" was doing the removal, as is the case here,
> then I *would* blame automake.
>
Fair enough.  Maybe we should explicitly document the "make distcheck"
behaviour in more details (including your example) ...

Thanks,
  Stefano

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.