[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ok to use upstream doumentation as-is (i.e. not regenerate)?

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

Reply to: