Re: Infinite recursion with `check_SCRIPTS = check'

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Benoit,

* Benoit SIGOURE wrote on Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:00:42PM CEST:
> On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>> Well, the user should be able to override the `check' target if he so
>> wants.  If it's possible to reliably warn without giving false failures
>> without a lot of work, then it would help.  But often such checks turn
>> out to be rather expensive in both developer time and automake run time.
>
> When you put `check' in `check_SCRIPTS' you're not directly willing to 
> override the `check' target.  `check' can happen to be generated, or it may 
> not.  I think it would be relevant to warn users that putting `check' in 
> `check_SCRIPTS' can lead to infinite make recursion, and mention that in 
> the docs.

Sure, feel free to submit a patch (to automake-patches).

>>> Maybe something along these lines would be better:
[...]
>>> @@ -6826,8 +6826,10 @@ sub am_primary_prefixes ($$@)
>>>  # Handle `where_HOW' variable magic.  Does all lookups, generates
>>>  # install code, and possibly generates code to define the primary
>>> -# variable.  The first argument is the name of the .am file to munge,
>>> -# the second argument is the primary variable (e.g. HEADERS), and all
>>> +# variable.  The first argument can be one of: '-noextra', '-candist',
>>> +# or '-defaultdist'.  FIXME: Document these options.
>>> +# The following argument is the name of the .am file to munge,
>>> +# the following argument is the primary variable (e.g. HEADERS), and all
>>>  # subsequent arguments are possible installation locations.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't understand at all what you're trying to say here.
>
> Hmm sorry, it's just that the documentation of that function doesn't 
> mention that the first argument can be an option such as '-candist' and it 
> disturbed me when wandering through the code, somehow.

Ah, ok.  I failed to grasp that your proposed patch had no relevance to
the infinite recursion (other than the fact that you happened to stumble
upon it at the same time ;-).  Well, I'd prefer the function
documentation to be addressed in a separate patch, and I'd even more
prefer if the patch reduced the number of FIXMEs instead of increasing
it.  :-)

Cheers,
Ralf