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

[Josef E. <za...@za...>]

Weddington, Eric wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----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.

I've the required versions installed and can commit the updated
configure file. But, to be honest, I don't see why replacing configure
is better than patching it or am I missing something?
Anyway I think this is no big deal. Both ways are ok for me  :) .

Josef