Hi all,
I am a big fan of 'make distcheck' and also a fan of compiling with
gcc's -Werrror flag. Most of my configure.ac scripts also have a
--enable-gcc-werror options so that I can use -Werror while developing
but ship tarballs without it.
So now I had this great idea. Wouldn't it be great if
Hello Ericm
* Erik de Castro Lopo wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 09:47:06AM CET:
So now I had this great idea. Wouldn't it be great if I could tell
'make distcheck' use './configure --enable-gcc-werror'!
Use DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS.
Cheers,
Ralf
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 19:47 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Hi all,
I am a big fan of 'make distcheck' and also a fan of compiling with
gcc's -Werrror flag. Most of my configure.ac scripts also have a
--enable-gcc-werror options so that I can use -Werror while developing
but ship tarballs
Braden McDaniel wrote:
Anyone have a clue on how to do this?
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS = --enable-gcc-werror
in your top-level Makefile.am.
Wow, that is a very beautiful thing.
Thanks Braden!
Cheers,
Erik
--
-
Erik de
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
So now I had this great idea. Wouldn't it be great if I could tell
'make distcheck' use './configure --enable-gcc-werror'!
Anyone have a clue on how to do this?
While this can certainly be done (as explained in subsequent email),
you might want
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OTOH, Erik could also put this in his Makefile.am:
my-distcheck:
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS=--enable-gcc-werror
That seems much better from an overall package portability standpoint.
Which is one reason I'm
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 05:11:29PM CET:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
So now I had this great idea. Wouldn't it be great if I could tell
'make distcheck' use './configure --enable-gcc-werror'!
Anyone have a clue on how to do this?
While
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 05:58:01PM CET:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Which is one reason I'm hesitating to enable the option dist-lzma for
the Automake package itself.
I assumed that if dist-lzma was requested that if the lzma tools were
not available
Hello Ruben,
Apologies for the delay, I must have missed this somehow:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.automake.general/8983
* Ruben Henner Zilibowitz wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:59:44PM CET:
I have run into a problem where the following line:
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4
in the
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
If the Automake option `dist-lzma' is enabled, the `dist' rule (and thus
also the `distcheck' rule) will require successful lzma tarball
creation. The rationale here is of course: if the package maintainer is
actually doing the distribution, then
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:34:31PM CET:
Thanks for the clarification. To be 100% correct, each of the created
dist files should be verified to see that its content passes the
distcheck tests.
If *that* were still a concern for a compression tool (as opposed to
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
If *that* were still a concern for a compression tool (as opposed to
various vendor `tar' programs), then heck it should not be promoted at
all for wider use. No, I don't think each package using Automake should
be turned into a regression test suite
12 matches
Mail list logo
