Re: [Cgdb-devel] Cgdb port for Cygwin

[Peter K. <pe...@ko...>]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 01:47:00PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > I've made the first set of changes to my local sandbox to allow out-of-=
tree=20
> > building and am about to commit them (or rather: will commit them tomor=
ow=20
> > morning) to the cygwin package's branch.=20
>=20
> Great. I am glad to hear it!
>=20
> > Are there any objections against me
> > removing the generated files (Makefile.in, configure, etc.) from the br=
anch?
> > They tend to bloat the CVS contents and, for the moment, do not exactly=
=20
> > reflect my changes because they're re-created with a different set of=
=20
> > Autotools than I will use to make the final package.. (IMHO, no generat=
ed
> > files should exist in CVS anyway..).
>=20
> The original idea was that the user would not need to have autoconf/autom=
ake
> installed in order to get CGDB to build. They could just do ./configure
> && make. The good thing about that is the user does not have to go get
> the versions of the tools we are using in order to get CGDB to build.
> They only need that software in order to change the build system.
>=20
> By removing those files, we would be complicating what the user has to
> do in order to use CGDB.
>=20
> What does everyone think the best way to go is?

I say keep generated files out of cvs, but put them into the source
tarball when you do a release.  That's fairly standard practice.  Now
that some distributions are packaging cgdb, hopefully it won't be an
issue at all.

Plus, I say its okay to require specific versions of autoconf/automake
if you want to build from CVS.

- Peter


--=20
Peter D. Kovacs <pe...@ko...>