Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:02:43 -0500
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.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; \
rm -f @PACKAGE@-@VERSION@.tar.gz; \
And my configure.ac has: