> > Would that stop the need for the --enable-maintainer-mode?
>
> Well, AM_MAINTAINER_MODE hasn't grown ugly over night, so just because
> other people advise against it now, doesn't mean it won't be useful for
> you. You could avoid it with above suggestions, but you could also just
> leave thi
bk (bitkeeper, from bitmover.com) handles this case, I'm pretty sure.
I think it's the -T option to the "get" command.
H
--
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > (c) Maybe there now also exists a version control system that allows
> > to store relative time stamp ordering(?) requir
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:13:26PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >>
> >>yes (CVS isn't the best tool - it happens to be one of the cheapest).
> >>Since it doesn't preserve timestamps or permissions, it's something
> >>that we wouldn't consider in $dayjob.
>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
Anyways, with all that the auto tools provide, this is the single most
frustrating problem that I have. I wish there was an elegant solution
with CVS to store the generated files. Is there?
While timestamps could certainly be an issue, they have not been m
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
yes (CVS isn't the best tool - it happens to be one of the cheapest).
Since it doesn't preserve timestamps or permissions, it's something
that we wouldn't consider in $dayjob.
Does subversion preserve these?
I am sure that when working, Subversion is the
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:27:21AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
(c) Maybe there now also exists a version control system that allows
to store relative time stamp ordering(?) requirements and reproduce them
upon c
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:27:21AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >(c) Maybe there now also exists a version control system that allows
> >to store relative time stamp ordering(?) requirements and reproduce them
> >upon checkout. I have no idea wheth
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
(c) Maybe there now also exists a version control system that allows
to store relative time stamp ordering(?) requirements and reproduce them
upon checkout. I have no idea whether such a thing exists, the number
of available systems has grown much, an
Hi Bob,
* Bob Rossi wrote on Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:03:42AM CET:
> Ping. Please help.
While I personally need and like to be reminded of things sometimes,
it's really not uncommon for replies to take several days on the
autotools lists. The audience is often busy, and can afford little
time on
> For the longest time I've had the generated autoconf files in CVS, and I
> used the AM_MAINTAINER_MODE option in the configure.am so that when I
> would checkout and build the source, the make command wouldn't
> regenerate the conf files due to timestamp differences.
>
> Recently, I was told not
10 matches
Mail list logo
