|
From: | Peter Johansson |
Subject: | Re: revision control info in generated files |
Date: | Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:58:34 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Jef Driesen wrote:
Well, it's a matter of taste, but I see no real reason to include it in the tarball.On 12/04/10 14:59, Peter Johansson wrote:Also, I would try avoid distributing `version.h', but not sure how to do that from top of my head.Why would you not distribute it?
I think it's very useful that it gets distributed. Imagine someone downloads a tarball and wants to built it with the msvc compiler (which I support for my project). Since no files can be generated in that (non autotools) environment, that works fine *if* the generated files are distributed.Yeah, but you don't need autotools to generate `version.h'. You only need make, `version.h.in', and `version' of which the two latter are already included in the distribution, right?
Are you sure about that? Files in AC_CONFIG_FILES are typically not distributed but their "*.in" counterpart is. See, for example, how Makefile.in is distributed but the Makefile is generated at the end of configure.When I used to generate those files from configure.ac, they were distributed as well.
Thanks, Peter -- Peter Johansson svndigest maintainer, http://dev.thep.lu.se/svndigest yat maintainer, http://dev.thep.lu.se/yat
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |