Hello! On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:55:21PM +0100, I wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:21:14PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > BTW, why is the CVS holding generated files like configure & co? Since > > we all have variouns versios of autoconf/automake, the cvs diff output > > is cluttered with useless hooks. > > Correct. I followed that practice of the previous committers to the > trees. It has both advantages and disadvantages. You listed a > disadvantage. An advantage is that we can easily tell people: ``Get the > `gnumach-1-branch' from cvs and compile that one.'' without having to > worry if they have suitable versions of the Auto* tools installed. I > don't know if that is really a strong argument, though.
(If this situation shour really occur somewhen, it'd also be enough to run a ``make dist'' and provide the person with the resulting tarball.) > I don't have a general objection against changing that practice. > > What are others's opinions? Others's opinions were also to remove all (?) generated files from the revision control system. Are there any Hurd maintainers to disagree? Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
