search for: overkillish

...s the following: > > 11. runs make dist > > 12. runs make clean > > 13. runs make dist-clean > > It it necessary for dist-check to run make dist? Y'know, when I typed that, I knew you were going to ask that. It doesn't make sense to me either. Seems a bit overkillish to me. > Why would we want to make > sure that our distribution can create a distribution? I think when I put it in Makefile.rules originally I was wanting to ensure that all the targets would be buildable, just to make sure. > If this is not > really necessarily, that would cut...

Hi Reid, > On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 21:03 -0500, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > It it necessary for dist-check to run make dist? > > Y'know, when I typed that, I knew you were going to ask that. It > doesn't make sense to me either. Seems a bit overkillish to me. I think a `make distcheck' should do a `make dist' because it checks that a tarball can reproduce itself. It doesn't ensure that a file checked-out of CVS makes it into the tarball, but if `make dist' depends on ./foo being present and it's there from CVS the first ti...

Reid, First, thanks for the excellent overview. This seems like it will be very useful. I have a question about dist-check. You mention that it will triple the amount of disk space I am using. I am guessing its because it does the following: > 11. runs make dist > 12. runs make clean > 13. runs make dist-clean It it necessary for dist-check to run make dist? Why would we