[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCHES] gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.16
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCHES] gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.16 |
Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:38:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:
> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> So, we still have a decision to make: whether to delete these generated
>> files (possibly in a snippet) to avoid using pre-generated non-source
>> files in our build. I would be in favor of it.
>>
>> I'd like to hear opinions on this.
I’d be in favor of removing these, especially since that seems to be an
easy change, but…
> Perhaps we can consider our existing packages as a precedent. Many
> packages include files in their source distribution that were
> auto-generated by the Autotools. For example, consider the "configure"
> script that Autoconf generates. Is there a significant difference
> between the "configure" script and the "pre-generated non-source files"
> you're talking about?
Indeed, there’s a long tradition in GNU to ship generated code to
facilitate bootstrapping. There’s configure, Makefile.in, etc., and
there’s also Bison- and Flex-generated files often.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it’s great to be able to use
these pre-generated files; our bootstrap graph would be much more
complicated or even out of reach if we were to re-generate everything.
OTOH, it’s true that this is the elephant in the room in terms of
bootstrapping.
Maybe it’s a can of worms we’d rather leave aside. :-)
Thoughts?
Ludo’.