Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make dist and distcheck targets #682

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jkbonfield
Copy link
Contributor

This is partly to replace the c-maint repository and additionally to add the ability to validate the tar balls is constructed correctly by unpacking, building and testing.

It is excessively messy getting this to work with the joint samtools/htslib tarball due to the catch-22 nature of having config.mk specify the HTSDIR and being included and used within Makefile targets in a circular fashion. However it does at least appear to work!

Differences to the c-maint one are the addiction of the acinclude.m4 (I am unsure if this is correct or not, but it's here while I mull it over) and the lack of changing time stamps within the tar. It does guarantee that configure post-dates the rest of the tar ball however.

Auto-generated files have no place in git and cause erroneous conflicts.
configure.ac Outdated
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
# DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script
AC_INIT([Samtools], m4_esyscmd_s([make print-version]),
AC_INIT([Samtools], m4_esyscmd_s([./version 2>/dev/null]),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

./version.sh?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yes. Curious it works though! Thanks for the spot.

Also removed PACKAGE_VERSION hard coded values from misc/maq2sam and
misc/wgsim.  This also needed code to explicitly duplicate what
autoconf does - ugh why do we insist on maintaining this
schitsophrenic build system?
@jkbonfield
Copy link
Contributor Author

I haven't done bcftools yet but was waiting on feedback for the samtools equivalent first, and for the bcftools autoconf branch to be merged.

Any feedback on this so far?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants