From: Alan W. I. <ir...@be...> - 2002-01-04 18:44:50
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Maurice LeBrun wrote: > Alan W. Irwin writes: > > Will it confuse cvs if I remove the 3 generated files from cvs control, but > > then change my mind later and want to put them under cvs control again? > > Sadly, yes. I've never been able to resurrect dead files without directly > modifying the repository. I just tried now on a test file / test repository > and still it doesn't work through the API. Thanks for this information. I am going to take my chances that I will never have to modify the repository (which would require SF's help or other extraordinary measures) to get these generated files back into cvs. > > > ....I think the right thing to do is to treat > > these generated files the same way we do the configure script; exclude them > > from cvs control but generate them for the tarball release. This only puts > > the onus on those of us here on the developer's list (and perhaps a few > > more) that are building from CVS to be sure that they have perl. > > I don't see any problem with this. Previously, it was leaving the generated > files out of the public distribution that caused all the trouble. > > > Any objections to having perl on your machine from the developers here? > > I doubt there'll be any objections. And as far as availability goes, IIRC > perl's even available under Windows. Thanks for your thoughts on this change. Also, I have specifically contacted Olof (our windows porter) on this question, and apparently it will not be a problem for him. Therefore, I have just made this change to CVS (and have already put a reminder in my release self-instructions to generate these files for the tarball release.) Alan |