On 16 April 2007 11:17, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> I follow,
No, not very well.
> The end-users who just want to compile gcc from a tarball do not
> have to have autoconf installed, because we supply all the generated files
> for them in the tarball. <- Well,
>
> what is the matter if the generated files aren't updated?
This has never happened as far as I know. Can you point to a single release
that was ever sent out with out-of-date generated files?
> The users will say many times broken situations like bootstrap doesn't
> work or else.
I haven't seen that happening either. Releases get tested before they are
released. Major failures get spotted. Occasionally, there might be a bug
that causes a problem building on one of the less-used (and hence
less-well-tested) platforms, but this is caused by an actual bug in the
configury, and not by the generated files being out of date w.r.t the source
files from which they are generated; regenerating them would only do the same
thing again.
If you have a counter-example of where this has /actually/ happened, I would
be interested to see it.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
