Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid another use of `chmod -R'.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:50:52PM CEST:
> At Tuesday 30 March 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand.  We are not putting any symlinks into
> > $(distdir), why would this be needed?
> First, mostly for consistency with other cleanup rules (those in 
> `tests/defs.in', `tests/Makefile.am' and `lib/am/distdir.am'),

But all of those rules are about directories in which we may put
symlinks.

> and 
> second, to cater for the (admittedly very unlikely) case that a
> dist-hook will be added that puts a symlink in $(distdir), or that a 
> bug will be introduced that ends up putting a symlink in $(distdir)
> somehow.

I wouldn't want to hide a bug preemptively, if that means it won't show
up here but only with user packages.

> > In order for symlinks to end up in $(distdir), you have to have a
> > dist-hook or similar rule, because normal distributed symlinks in
> >  the source tree will be expanded as regular files in $(distdir).
> I must admit that I forgot the existence this "symlink-resolving" 
> feature...
> 
> By the way, is it tested in the testsuite?  I couldn't find anything 
> relevant by grepping the test scripts.

A testsuite addition that covers this would be welcome.  Be sure to not
fail if the system doesn't support symlinks (MinGW will emulate ln -s
with cp -p).

Thanks,
Ralf