I already thought that this was the good solution, but I have always
been puzzled by
the fact that I never see it yet implemented (such as in gnu projects).
I agree on
everything, but you have to make these generated files ignored to your
versioning
system, and there should be a way to remove them easily.
It this solution is so obvious, I don't understand why autotools
developers have not
already set up a tool which automatically removes the files generated by
the autotools
(perhaps this tool exists and I don't know about).
Thanks,
Eric
P.S. The problem is less important with CVS, because CVS keeps
modification dates
(which generates others problems in the versioning system)
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Eric PAIRE wrote:
>
>
>>3) I have set up a tag with 'svn copy' so that the tagged version is the
>>exact
>> copy of the version in the 'trunk' directory.
>>4) Another user gets the tagged version with a 'svn co' and runs 'configure'
>> on it. And now ...
>>
>>
>
>As it was once so eloquently explained to me by a senior Debian developer
>when I asked exactly the same question (but for CVS, since Subversion didn't
>exist yet): "If you're doing that, you're weird. Go away".
>
>The translation for that would be: Why the heck are you keeping
>auto-generated files in a RCS system? Get them out of there, they do NOT
>belong in the repository!
>
>Add a run-this-on-checkout script and proper rules to the makefiles to run
>the autotools sequence if the autotools files are not yet available.
>
>As for a bad autotools setup on the build system, well, document properly
>what the build system has to have installed for the development versions.
>Anyone doing development has to be at least capable of a proper build system
>setup, no?
>
>When you generate a release, run autotools before you make a
>tar.bz2/tar.gz/.cab/whatever file that you're going to distribute. This
>way, all the autotools scripts are already built and have correct timestamps
>inside the distribution archive. Normal users won't need to bother with
>autotools configs, then, unless they muck with Makefile.am, configure.in or
>something else like that.
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 1 16:38:36 2004