Re: revision control info in generated files

[Jef Driesen]

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, `version.h.in', 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 configure.ac, 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
> Makefile.in is distributed but the Makefile is generated at the end of
> configure.

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