From: Josef E. <za...@za...> - 2009-11-29 16:06:40
|
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 |