Re: [PATCH] dist: add new "pure-dist" automake option

Jim Meyering <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.sysutils.automake.patches
Message-ID <CA+8g5KHAmbrNsMrfPcnAxLwejTcWgUR=4h6Osdu6_4htxLiVUg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 2:19 PM Karl Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>      - I used the word "pure" in the sense of a pure function,
>
> Yes, I realized.
>
> My thought was that, suppose some other similar change is needed in the
> future that changes what gets automatically distributed, or
> prerequisites, or whatever. However, we would not want to change the
> effect of "pure-dist", because of compatibility, even if theoretically
> this hypothetical change was also about "purity". Then the name would
> become more confusing than helpful.
>
> Therefore it seems better to me to describe what the option actually
> does (dist-no-built-sources) than to come up with a general name,
> even though it is (granted) prettier.
>
> static-dist isn't any different in that regard. I like pure-dist better
> than static-dist, of the two.
>
> I hear you about long option names, but ... I don't see a perfect answer
> here.
>
> By the way, looking at the current list of AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS, I think the
> name should definitely start with "dist-", whatever else.
>
>     - My actual preference would be to have this be the default option.
>     Might we have a path some day to a place where this is true,
>     possibly after a transition period?
>
> Well, the decision is Jim's, as the primary maintainer. IMHO, retaining
> compatibility is more important than relatively minor behavior
> improvements when it comes to behavior of long-established programs like
> Automake. If the BUILT_SOURCES dependency had only started a year or two
> ago, maybe, but it's a lot older than that.
>
> Changing the default, at behavior any time, will inevitably induce
> significant hassle for maintainers of packages which depend, possibly
> unknowingly, on the current behavior. Having been that maintainer (on
> the receiving end) more times than I count for such gratuitous behavior
> "improvements", I prefer not to inflict it myself.
>
>      - I made a mistake: I added the tests, but I forgot to add them to the
>     list of tests.
>
> I'll add it, no problem there. Thanks for the heads-up. -k

Thanks to both of you.
Let's go with dist-no-built-sources for the reasons Karl gave.
Once the patch is fixed to reference the new tests from
t/list-of-tests.mk, I saw only two other nits:
- the copyright date in a new file should include only the current year
- the test description should be updated (from copied file) to refer
to the new test, e.g.,
  # Ensure "dist-no-built-sources" option works as advertised.

Switching names means references to "impure" are no longer
appropriate, of course.

In incidentally-related news, I found that make check now hangs on
tests-environment-fd-redirect on Fedora 34, so I'm investigating that.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.