Re: [Cgdb-devel] Cgdb port for Cygwin

[Mike M. <mmu...@cs...>]

I tend to agree with Peter.  Although it's convenient to have the
generated files present, if it poses a problem, they shouldn't be
there.  They should definitely be included in the release tarballs.

Mike

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Peter Kovacs wrote:

: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
:> > building and am about to commit them (or rather: will commit them tomorow
:> > morning) to the cygwin package's branch.
:>
:> Great. I am glad to hear it!
:>
:> > Are there any objections against me
:> > removing the generated files (Makefile.in, configure, etc.) from the branch?
:> > They tend to bloat the CVS contents and, for the moment, do not exactly
:> > reflect my changes because they're re-created with a different set of
:> > Autotools than I will use to make the final package.. (IMHO, no generated
:> > files should exist in CVS anyway..).
:>
:> The original idea was that the user would not need to have autoconf/automake
:> 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.
:>
:> By removing those files, we would be complicating what the user has to
:> do in order to use CGDB.
:>
:> 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
:
:
:--
:Peter D. Kovacs <pe...@ko...>
: