Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/27/19:59:20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 7:08 AM
> To: cygwin-Apps AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: libgetopt++ and setup and libstdc++
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 04:38:48AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >As usual, nothing is fixed in stone, and if this is a significant
> >issue, it can be revisited.
>
> I have to agree with Earnie here. AFAIK, every other
> toolchain on sources.redhat.com stores the autogenerated files in CVS.
Is there a policy on this? I'd hate to think that projects that happen
to share the same CVS server had to have something as minor as this
consistent. I really don't see how being part of the same CVS server
(and in this case used on the same umbrella project) requires the same
policy. I've not changed the _setup_ policy, this is only for
libgetopt++.
As I said, it is up for discussion though...
BUT!
I've yet to see any rationale that explains how the general developer
will be better off. I've searched for Earnie's assertion that what I'm
doing is against the auto*tool folks recommendations, and I found
nothing to back that up. The main reference I found - the goat book -
states that developers do NOT store the generated files in CVS.
And please, remember setup's goals before arguments for benefit of end
users are made: This project is of _no_ use to the end user as source
code unless they either have cygwin fully installed and working (in
which case the project has already done it's job) or they have a cross
compile system. In either case having a set of auto*tools available is
trivial. (rpmfind/apt-get/ports/setup all have the ability to
automatically grab and install the current auto*tool versions).
Whereas on the other hand, the auto generated files are a pain in the
proverbial for branching,merging, patch size, tool versioning issues and
so forth.
Rob
- Raw text -