[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: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:05:56 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 12/04/2010 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?

In case anyone is interested, I found how to avoid distribution of generated header and source files. Just prefix them with nodist_

nodist_foobar_HEADERS = version.h
nodist_foobar_SOURCES = version.c

Of course that will break my msvc project files, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. But what if I could distribute these generated files under a different name? For instance distribute the generated "version.h" file as a "version.h.win32" file. That shouldn't cause any problems in an autotools setup, and for my msvc project file, I can provide a custom build rule to copy it back to a "version.h" file.

Is there a better way to do that compared to this:

version.h.win32: version.h
   cp $< $@

EXTRA_DIST = version.h.win32

reply via email to

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