On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ben Elliston <b...@air.net.au> wrote: > Thanks for the patch. I think, though, that we are happy working with > the tree the way it is (ie. not requiring casual developers to have > the autotools installed).
Hi Ben, IMHO it is not unreasonable expectation that upstream contributors has autotools installed. If someone want to develop without them the person could take tar ball release version. Notice that the patch also makes creating a tar ball very trivial. All one has to do is 'make dist', which did not work earlier. I do admit the patch will create new dependency to a tool set, but perhaps it is not too high price of being certain consistency of auto generated files. Previously the examples where for instance using rather old versions, while main directory contents had new stuff. While that might work I suppose it is not favourable situation[1]. Plus some people think 'Autogenerated files inside the VCS repo are almost always a bad idea.'[2] At the end it is your, maintainers, call if yo want to merge the patch or not. I sincerely hope you would reconsider if old tree really is nice sustainable state. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Autoconf_and_Automake [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg00686.html -- Sami Kerola http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/ _______________________________________________ DejaGnu mailing list DejaGnu@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
