Julien BLACHE jb at jblache.org writes:
Olaf Meeuwissen olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp wrote:
Hi,
Not doing so will make for a lot of big commits.
And? What's the point? As long as the build system updates are
self-contained and not mixed with other changes in the tree, we
couldn't care
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
autofoo one has to know. As for the amount of pain involved, I can
only think of the time it takes. Julien mentions versioning issues
and broken deployment but I have little experience with that.
You obviously never had to work with
Olaf Meeuwissen olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp wrote:
Hi,
Acknowledged. It may even be a better approach as several Linux
distributions have a habit of running autoreconf --force before that
build (and for a good reason). Putting the hack in configure makes
at least sure they pick up on it.
Julien BLACHE wrote:
autofoo one has to know. As for the amount of pain involved, I can
only think of the time it takes. Julien mentions versioning issues
and broken deployment but I have little experience with that.
You obviously never had to work with broken libtool versions, which
Chris Bagwell chris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
Hi,
So I think its safe to say that you've had some sort of bad experience
with some part of the autofoo chain in the past and have settle on
Not inside SANE. The most painful experience we've had here was
switching to modern autofoo versions
Chris Bagwell chris at cnpbagwell.com writes:
On 1/17/2009 3:20 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Chris Bagwellchris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
I've not seen this discussed in mailing list archive. Is there any past
discussions?
We leave autotools files in CVS because:
- it's a pain to
Chris Bagwell chris at cnpbagwell.com writes:
On 1/18/2009 8:50 PM, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
See also,
http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Files-under-CVS.html#Files-under-CVS.
Agree with all your comments... Also, here is similar link from
Automake that describes cvs
Olaf Meeuwissen olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp wrote:
Hi,
Not doing so will make for a lot of big commits.
And? What's the point? As long as the build system updates are
self-contained and not mixed with other changes in the tree, we
couldn't care less.
As we also discussed maintaining our
On 1/18/2009 8:50 PM, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
See also,
http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Files-under-CVS.html#Files-under-CVS.
Agree with all your comments... Also, here is similar link from Automake
that describes cvs issues in a little more detail.
Chris Bagwell chris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
Hi,
I've not seen this discussed in mailing list archive. Is there any past
discussions?
We leave autotools files in CVS because:
- it's a pain to regenerate them
- developers don't always know autofoo
- distributions ship broken version of
Chris Bagwell chris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
* Autotools not required, as long as developer is not modifying configure.in
While speaking of configure.in... it could use a good cleanup as
you've probably seen, and while doing so it could also avoid testing
for freebsd/beos/osx things when
On 1/17/2009 3:20 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Chris Bagwellchris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
Hi,
I've not seen this discussed in mailing list archive. Is there any past
discussions?
We leave autotools files in CVS because:
- it's a pain to regenerate them
- developers don't
On 1/17/2009 4:21 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Chris Bagwellchris at cnpbagwell.com wrote:
* Autotools not required, as long as developer is not modifying configure.in
While speaking of configure.in... it could use a good cleanup as
you've probably seen, and while doing so it could
Hi all,
I've not seen this discussed in mailing list archive. Is there any past
discussions?
Its pretty common practice (but not 100%) that projects using autotools
to not check in files generated by autoconf/autoreconf into
CVS/git/etc. Currently, the sane project falls into the camp that
14 matches
Mail list logo
