Re: built files in CVS

[Tim Van Holder]

> > Suffice it to say that I believe that CVS is the wrong tool 
> for this.
> > Most, if not all, of the other projects with which I am 
> familiar agree
> > with me.  Autoconf and automake are the two glaring 
> counter-examples,
> > so I wondered if they knew something that I didn't.
> 
>         Add XEmacs to your "glaring counter-examples". We 
> don't have the
> problems you describe because everybody respects the rules. 
> Either you don't
> touch these files, or you do it in accordance with the 
> archive. I agree it
> doesn't help when something fancy happens on the archive side 
> though ;-)

Yes, but for autoconf and automake, this is a bit different, as
an update is likely to bring in a file generated by the version
you're downloading (e.g. updating your Automake 1.5j CVS tree
brings you a Makefile.in generated by the next snapshot, 1.5k).
So for autotools, not using a bootstrap script is likely to
generate many more conflicts than a 'regular' project.