[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> `distcheck` target's prominence to recommend it in the "Standard > Targets for All Users" section of the GCS? > Replying as an Automake developer, I have nothing against it in > principle, but it's clearly up to the GNU coding standards > maintainers. As far as I know, that's still rms (for anything > substantive) To make a change in the coding standards calls for a clear and specific proposal. If people think a change is desirable, I suggest making one or more such proposals. Now for a bit of speculation. I speculate that a cracker was careless and failed to adjust certain details of a bogus tar ball to be fully consistent, and that `make distcheck' enabled somene to notice those errors. I don't have any real info about whether that is so. If my speculation is mistaken, please say so. But supposing it is correct: If we had publicized `make distcheck' more, would that have been likely to help people detect the bogus tar ball sooner? Or would it have been likely to help the cracker be more careful about avoiding such signs? Would they balance out? -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
