* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:50:52PM CEST: > At Tuesday 30 March 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand. We are not putting any symlinks into > > $(distdir), why would this be needed? > First, mostly for consistency with other cleanup rules (those in > `tests/defs.in', `tests/Makefile.am' and `lib/am/distdir.am'),
But all of those rules are about directories in which we may put symlinks. > and > second, to cater for the (admittedly very unlikely) case that a > dist-hook will be added that puts a symlink in $(distdir), or that a > bug will be introduced that ends up putting a symlink in $(distdir) > somehow. I wouldn't want to hide a bug preemptively, if that means it won't show up here but only with user packages. > > In order for symlinks to end up in $(distdir), you have to have a > > dist-hook or similar rule, because normal distributed symlinks in > > the source tree will be expanded as regular files in $(distdir). > I must admit that I forgot the existence this "symlink-resolving" > feature... > > By the way, is it tested in the testsuite? I couldn't find anything > relevant by grepping the test scripts. A testsuite addition that covers this would be welcome. Be sure to not fail if the system doesn't support symlinks (MinGW will emulate ln -s with cp -p). Thanks, Ralf
