[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: revision control info in generated files

From: Jef Driesen
Subject: Re: revision control info in generated files
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:16:38 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100217 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.3pre

On 12/04/10 15:58, Peter Johansson wrote:
Jef Driesen wrote:
On 12/04/10 14:59, Peter Johansson wrote:
Also, I would try avoid distributing
`version.h', but not sure how to do that from top of my head.

Why would you not distribute it?

Well, it's a matter of taste, but I see no real reason to include it in
the tarball.

I think it's very useful that it gets distributed. Imagine someone
downloads a tarball and wants to built it with the msvc compiler
(which I support for my project). Since no files can be generated in
that (non autotools) environment, that works fine *if* the generated
files are distributed.

Yeah, but you don't need autotools to generate `version.h'. You only
need make, `', and `version' of which the two latter are
already included in the distribution, right?

True, but make, sed, etc are usually also not available in a msvc environment. I maintain an msvc project file as a convenience for windows developers (I use a mingw cross compiler myself), and there the generated files are referenced directly. So if they are missing building fails.

Generating files in a msvc is possible with custom build rules, but it's tricky.

When I used to generate those files from, they were
distributed as well.

Are you sure about that? Files in AC_CONFIG_FILES are typically not
distributed but their "*.in" counterpart is. See, for example, how is distributed but the Makefile is generated at the end of

I just checked, and for a resource file (*.rc) in my project that is generated from, both the and .rc file are included in the tarball when I run make distcheck.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]