Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

[Keith Marshall]

On 13/04/13 22:12, Steffen Daode Nurpmeso wrote:
> Keith Marshall<address@hidden>  wrote:
>   |On 13/04/13 14:52, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>   |>> Any comments?
>   |
>   |Some projects do commit configure, others don't.  IMO, it is better if
>   |it is*not*  committed, but IIRC it has been there, in groff's CVS, for
>   |as long as I've been associated with the project.  I would be in favour
>   |of removing it now...
>
> Please don't change this friendly current situation.
>
> It is really a terrible thing that many projects do no longer
> / not ship a self-contained repository, but one that requires an
> immense amount of utilities just to create a runnable configure
> script.

configure would *always* be shipped within released source tarballs; 
however, it is a *generated* file, and does *not* belong in a CVS 
repository, IMO.

To generate configure, you need autoconf, together with its perl and m4 
pre-requisites; I don't think it unreasonable to expect those building 
from CVS to have those installed, (especially when they already need 
tools such as flex and bison, which also require m4, and groff wants 
perl anyway).  In any project with multiple committers, such as groff, 
it is unrealistic to demand that all developers maintain their tool 
chains at *identically* the same autoconf version; if they don't, and 
configure is held in CVS, then its content will thrash backwards and 
forwards between disparate states, often with several hundreds of lines 
of script oscillating, as different developers commit possibly only 
single line changes to configure.ac or aclocal.m4.  Not a serious issue, 
perhaps; just untidy.  It is simply cleaner to leave each individual to 
generate his own local copy of configure.

--
Regards,
Keith.