On 12/04/10 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?
True, but make, sed, etc are usually also not available in a msvc
environment. I maintain an msvc project file as a convenience for
windows developers (I use a mingw cross compiler myself), and there the
generated files are referenced directly. So if they are missing building
fails.
Generating files in a msvc is possible with custom build rules, but it's
tricky.
When I used to generate those files from configure.ac, they were
distributed as well.
Are you sure about that? Files in AC_CONFIG_FILES are typically not
distributed but their "*.in" counterpart is. See, for example, how
Makefile.in is distributed but the Makefile is generated at the end of
configure.
I just checked, and for a resource file (*.rc) in my project that is
generated from configure.ac, both the .rc.in and .rc file are included
in the tarball when I run make distcheck.
