From: Weddington, E. <Eri...@at...> - 2009-11-29 15:32:04
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Josef Eisl [mailto:za...@za...] > Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:23 AM > To: Weddington, Eric > Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] current status and future > direction oftheavr-llvm project > > Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Josef Eisl [mailto:za...@za...] > >> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:56 AM > >> To: avr...@li... > >> Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] current status and future > >> direction oftheavr-llvm project > >> > >> > >> Yes, as long as we have separate patches for configure.ac and > >> configure > >> (or more generally speaking one patch file for user edited autoconf > >> files and one for generated output). > > > > Generally I don't like to patch generated files. It's much > better to re-generate the file and then commit that (if > necessary). This is what happens on other projects such as gcc. > I understand that but the generation of the configure script requires > very special version of autoconf, aclocal and libtool (if you > don't want > to edit the AutoRegen.sh script). I think we should provide a > patch for > configure for people who don't want to install these versions > of the tools. Or an alternative is that we (one of us at least) use those specific versions and regenerate configure and commit that. I worry about patching configure. I don't have a problem with regenerating it. |