Re: Architecture independent binaries and building from source
sean finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 08:58:37AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
>> As a rule, we don't regenerate all files from source. We don't
>> generally, for example, regenerate configure (using autoconf) from
> first, the configure script is not a binary file, the bytecode you
> discuss is. second, while it can be generated from the configure.ac,
> it's questionable whether or not the configure.ac is the
> "preferred form" for modification.
>> configure.ac even though it is possible. No one can sensibly suggest
>> that a shell script of twenty thousand lines is in source form. I
> i've yet to see a configure script that's 20000 lines long,
$ cd gimp-print/current
$ wc -l configure configure.ac
configure.ac is most definitely my preferred form of modification!!
Even though both are plain text, configure is clearly generated from
configure.ac through m4 macro expansion (including a bunch of custom
macros). I certainly wouldn't normally accept a patch that changed
configure, since it would almost certainly be useless.
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:13:56AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
>> The text is clear that both the source code and the binary are
>> required. I have included both in the package.
> but there's no guarantee that the source code can successfully build
> the binaries included if it wasn't used to build the binaries included
> in the first place.
Agreed. There's also no absolute guarantee that the compiled binaries
match the distributed source; perhaps they are outdated or required
some additional tools to build?
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.