At 07:12 AM 8/22/2002 -0700, Noel Yap wrote: >I don't understand, if Makefile.cache has to be in >synch with the other files: >1. Why are there systems that are able to commit, but >can't build Makefile.cache?
There are no such systems. I'm not sure where my text misled you into thinking that, but that's not what I meant to say. >2. Why would you not want to commit Makefile.cache >once it's regenerated? You cannot commit it until the other corresponding source files are committed. If you commit new or modified source files, then you must commit the modified Makefile.cache. Yes, there have been a couple of times where everything wasn't properly committed and it broke the build for other developers. That's no worse than other typical errors like forgetting to cvs add a new file and committing other modified files that depend on the new file. >3. Why can't the build system just generate >Makefile.cache without it being versioned? Building Makefile.cache from scratch requires running a GUI tool. The GUI cannot be run without manual intervention. The build system is used for automated (read "no manual intervention") builds to create a release. It's the middle part of "cvs export; build; package". Just for the record, I dislike this GUI tool and the extra conditions it puts on the build and the extra work I had to do to get the builds to be repeatable. This method was the best solution I could find. Fred _____________________________________________________________________ Fred Brehm, Sarnoff Corporation, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sarnoff.com/digital_video_informatics/vision_technology/index.asp _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
