GNU bug report logs - #14245
nobase_foo_DATA vs nobase_dist_foo_DATA

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 14245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>
To: Daiki Ueno <ueno <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 14245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: nobase_foo_DATA vs nobase_dist_foo_DATA
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:30:22 +0000 (UTC)

close 14245 !
thankyou

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:30:17 +0900, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> With Automake master and 1.12.2, if Makefile.am has:
>
>   nobase_foo_DATA = sub/nodist.dat
>   nobase_dist_foo_DATA = sub/dist.dat
>
> sub/dist.dat is not packed in the distribution.  I doubt this is a bug,
> but the opposite use of dist_ and nobase_:
>
>   dist_bar_DATA = sub/base.dat
>   nobase_dist_bar_DATA = sub/nobase.dat
>
> works just fine.
>
> I'm attaching a test case.

thanks for the test case.  it's slightly incomplete and fails because distcheck
can't find sub/nodist.dat to install (which makes sense as it wasn't included
in the tarball).  but that was trivial to resolve with your test case, and i'm
guessing it was failing sooner for you.

which is my long winded way of saying i can't reproduce the bug with automake
1.16.  i'm going to mark this done on the assumption something/someone fixed
the bug.  but i'll update your test and include it to make sure we keep working.

specifically, looking at the tarball produced by `make dist`, i see:
nobase-dist-1.0/sub/
nobase-dist-1.0/sub/nobase.dat
nobase-dist-1.0/sub/base.dat
nobase-dist-1.0/sub/dist.dat
-mike

Previous Next

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