Re: Having generated files in cvs?

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hello!

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:55:21PM +0100, I wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:21:14PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > BTW, why is the CVS holding generated files like configure & co?  Since
> > we all have variouns versios of autoconf/automake, the cvs diff output
> > is cluttered with useless hooks.
> 
> Correct.  I followed that practice of the previous committers to the
> trees.  It has both advantages and disadvantages.  You listed a
> disadvantage.  An advantage is that we can easily tell people: ``Get the
> `gnumach-1-branch' from cvs and compile that one.'' without having to
> worry if they have suitable versions of the Auto* tools installed.  I
> don't know if that is really a strong argument, though.

(If this situation shour really occur somewhen, it'd also be enough to
run a ``make dist'' and provide the person with the resulting tarball.)

> I don't have a general objection against changing that practice.
> 
> What are others's opinions?

Others's opinions were also to remove all (?) generated files from the
revision control system.

Are there any Hurd maintainers to disagree?


Regards,
 Thomas

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature