Re: revision control info in generated files

[Jef Driesen]

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, `version.h.in', 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