[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:02:43 -0500
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:

> > That's what they should do, the only real disadvantage is that it
> > makes the diff a bit bigger. But it makes the build much more
> > predictable and reliable. I wonder if a should in policy or a lintian
> > warning would be helpful.
> People will probably respond well to some example code that they can
> stuff in their rules files.  A rule named, say, "dist" or "debiandist".
> (I'd lean in favor of "dist" since the Debian-ness of it is already
> implied by the name of the rules file: debian/rules.)

What kind of debiandist are you expecting ?


my debiandist target in Makefile.am:

	if [ ! -f $@ ]; then $(MAKE) distcheck && dch -v "@VERSION@-1" "New upstream version" && mv @PACKAGE@-@VERSION@.tar.gz ../@PACKAGE@_@VERSION@.orig.tar.gz; \
	else \
	rm -f @PACKAGE@-@VERSION@.tar.gz; \

debiandist: ../@PACKAGE@_@VERSION@.orig.tar.gz

And my configure.ac has:




dancer@debian.org  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

Reply to: