On 11-06-05 at 09:48am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-06-05 at 05:39am, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > >What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside > > > >autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the > > > >clean rule put back the upstream-provided files (because I want > > > >not only minimal required build routines idempotent but also > > > >building with git-buildpackage). > > > > > > In the clean rules, you can just delete those autogenerated files. > > > > True for a normal build. Not true when building from git. > > > > Yes, there are other possible approaches than restoring (i.e. adding > > them to .gitignore) but simply deleteing is not enough. > > Well, we've known for more than 10 years that commiting any > auto-generated file to the [development] VCS tree is a Bad Idea. It > was a lot worse with CVS than it is with git, of course, but it has > always been trouble. Depends on what you want to track in your VCS. I want to track upstream released sources and our changes to them. Discussion here is the cases when upstream intended some files to be treated as static but we want to regenerate anyway - and still preserve pristine source. I already wrote that there are multiple approaches. Seems you implicitly suggest to let go of preserving pristine source. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature