From: Glenn Randers-P. <gl...@gm...> - 2010-09-27 12:30:17
|
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Enrico Weigelt <we...@me...> wrote: > * Glenn Randers-Pehrson <gl...@gm...> wrote: > >> I think it will be confusing if the "canonical cvs source tree" and >> the "canonical tarballs" do not have exactly the same content. > > That's not uncommon. Many packages have only the real source code > in their VCS and additionally some pregenerated stuff (eg. autoconf > files) in their tarballs. I think that's fine and reflects the needs > of the different audiences. > >> I would not have any problem removing the same set of >> files from the canonical cvs and the canonical tarball set. > > Actually, if there's an canonical vcs tree (cvs isn't what I'd > consider an good vcs, I meant to say "vcs" not "cvs" above, and "vcs" not "CVS" below. We've never had a CVS (or svn), despite some people urging us to make one. > but I can import it into git easily) where > everything can be built from automatically, Well, there is the problem. Since 1.2.6 and 1.0.16, everything can be built automatically. Prior to those you need to use the appropriate scripts/makefile. As I may have said in an earlier message, it would not be difficult to put a configure script in those earlier tarballs and pretend it was always there. If I'm revising history, then I would also remove files for which we don't have a clear license to redistribute (the MMX stuff) and pretend it was never there, just keeping some stubs to maintain ABI compatibility. > I don't care much > about tarballs. #:-) IMHO it should all be consistent. Glenn |