Re: [avr-llvm-devel] current status and future direction oftheavr-llvm project

[Weddington, E. <Eri...@at...>]

 

> -----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.