On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 10:26:26PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:05:25PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > > > Maybe it could be a good idea to have ./autogen.sh regenerate it? > > > > I've done this and also tracked the file in git to facilitate > > any updates. > > I think that it is indeed best, especially for git branches switching, > in case the test files are different for different branches. > > The downside is that if tar is different from the tar that generated the > tarball and the tarball is different even though it contains the same > information it will lead to spurious differences in git. I have no idea > to what extent different tar give byte-compatible output. Most > developpers will be using a recent GNU tar, but we do not know for sure.
Good point. If the file continually shows differences in git then we should untrack it.
