Re: Remove conf/*.mk from svn

[Colin D Bennett]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:41:53 +0200
Javier Martín <address@hidden> wrote:

> El mar, 05-08-2008 a las 17:48 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió:
> > Vesa Jääskeläinen <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > Marco Gerards wrote:
> > >> Colin D Bennett <address@hidden> writes:
> > >>> I think we should remove conf/*.mk from the Subversion
> > >>> repository.  If people are going to be developing on GRUB and
> > >>> checking out svn branches, then I think it's fine to require
> > >>> them to have Ruby.  For released tarballs that we expect
> > >>> non-developers to use, we just need to generate the *.mk files
> > >>> and include them in the tarball.
> > >>
> > >> I do not have problems with this.  Besides this, it will stop
> > >> people from sending in patches with .mk changes in it :-)
> > >
> > > I think Okuji's objection is based on fact that it makes it
> > > harder for people to compile from sources. Now what if we would
> > > generate those files when making a release? Of course this should
> > > be enabled to script/makefile to make it automatically so it is
> > > not forgotten ;)
> > 
> > Right.  Just to be clear, personally I didn't have these objections
> > but Okuji has.
> > 
> > Actually, since ruby is required to generate these files, I guess we
> > can better keep the .mk files.
> Why not rewrite genmk.rb in a more common language (i.e. with an
> interpreter more commonly found in stock GNU installs) like Python or
> Perl?

Fine with me.  It shouldn't be too hard for someone who understands it.

Based on the discussions following my initial suggestion, it sounds
like it is considered too much work for people compiling from a svn
checkout to install Ruby?

Did I emphasize enough that released tarballs or any sort of archived
snapshot should be generated *with* the .mk files?  I am concerned only
with the files under version control -- the point being that files
generated from often-modified files (such as the ``conf/*.rmk`` which
are often modified) have no business being under version control.  I
think that this is even more important than lesser modified files such
as the configure script, etc., since fewer developers have to touch
that.

Regards,
Colin