On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 04:54:21PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 11:29 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > phcoder wrote on Sunday 12 April 2009: > > > Hello, we all know how annoying are these autogenerated files. We could > > > remove it. The main argument against it is that people will not be able > > > to compile without installing a lot of developement tools. It changes > > > nothing for the users wanting to modify the code. So I propose to remove > > > these files but in compensation setup a nightly build server. I'm ready > > > to supply all necessary scripts to create a source tar.gz with > > > autogenerated files, binary tar.gz and rescue iso for all platforms > > > where applicable. > > > > Great idea. I'd love to see this happen. > > Me too.
Me too. Okuji, can we agree on it this time? It's annoying for most people, and release tarballs can include the autogenerated files, so the ruby dependency is not a problem for end users. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
