Re: Autoconf 2.50
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:40:06PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:11:39PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > The only real problems are with beta packages taken from CVS,
> > > i would suggest to run autoconf 2.13 on those sources and ship
> > > generated files along with sources until upstream author considers
> > > putting those files under CVS too, which is IMO the best solution.
> >
> > Putting autoconf-, aclocal-, autoheader-, and automake- generated files in
> > CVS is a bad idea.
> [...]
>
> Could you explain why this is wrong?
> This is how i proceed on some packages and am very happy with it.
You'll not notice the problem until there is more than one person
using the CVS repository.
What happens is that two people start using different versions of,
say, autoconf. Each version will generate a correct, but slightly
different, configure script for the same configure.in file.
Person A commits. Person B's next update tries to patch the configure
script, resulting in an unholy mess.
Been there, suffered through that.
Bottom line: CVS is for human-generated files ONLY.
-S
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: