Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-14 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> Does that mean that in CVS all files generated by >> autconf/autoreconf such as `configure' should vanish? So everyone >> using CVS must first run autoconf/autoreconf? > > That's my understanding of what Werner and Keith have been saying, > yes. Indeed, but: > I'd hope you don't find too ma

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-14 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Bernd, > Does that mean that in CVS all files generated by autconf/autoreconf > such as `configure' should vanish? So everyone using CVS must first > run autoconf/autoreconf? That's my understanding of what Werner and Keith have been saying, yes. I'd hope you don't find too many in there in a

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-14 Thread Bernd Warken
Von: "Ralph Corderoy" > > Hi Keith, > > > however, [configure] is a *generated* file, and does *not* belong in a > > CVS repository, IMO. > > Quite. Nothing generated belongs in CVS; that's for human-edited > source only as otherwise its usefulness for investigation and > understanding changes

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-14 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Keith, > however, [configure] is a *generated* file, and does *not* belong in a > CVS repository, IMO. Quite. Nothing generated belongs in CVS; that's for human-edited source only as otherwise its usefulness for investigation and understanding changes diminshes due to the noise. CVS users h

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> 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

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Keith Marshall
On 13/04/13 22:12, Steffen Daode Nurpmeso wrote: Keith Marshall 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 lon

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Bernd Warken
> Thanks for your expansion of `.cvsignore'. But the `autom4te.cache' > subdirectory is still created for me, though without data files. It just > has an usual CVS subdirectory. > > I'm not sure if that's only for me. Then it should be possible to kill > it with `~/.autom4te'. > > But if it is

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Bernd, Bernd Warken wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 05:55:43PM +0200: > Werner Lemberg wrote: >> Bernd Warken wrote: >>> I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' >>> created. First I just deleted it. >> This directory and its contents is *always* intermediate! It just >>

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Daode
Keith Marshall 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

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Bernd Warken
> Von: "Keith Marshall" > > Sure, you may keep your autom4te.cache around, for you own future use, > but please don't "queer the pitch" for others, by polluting CVS with > this local host specific data. Thanks for your expansion of `.cvsignore'. But the `autom4te.cache' subdirectory is still

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Keith Marshall
On 13/04/13 18:38, Bernd Warken wrote: So it seems to be not as bad as it seemed to be. It can be kept for further runs of `autotools', for example if someone will do `automake'. 1) We don't use automake; the only autotool we do use is autoconf. 2) Whatever content you accumulate in *your* lo

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Bernd Warken
> Von: "Bernd Warken" > > Von: "Werner LEMBERG" > > > > > I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' > > > created. First I just deleted it. > > > > This directory and its contents is *always* intermediate! It just > > speeds up the execution of the autoconf tools. Actually,

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Bernd Warken
> Von: "Werner LEMBERG" > > > I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' > > created. First I just deleted it. > > This directory and its contents is *always* intermediate! It just > speeds up the execution of the autoconf tools. Actually, the > `configure' script itself sh

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Keith Marshall
On 13/04/13 14:52, Werner LEMBERG wrote: I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' created. First I just deleted it. This is correct. Then I learned that `autoreconf' is the better `autoconf' because it automatically calls all necessary `autotools'. But `autoreconf' al

Re: [Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' > created. First I just deleted it. This is correct. > Then I learned that `autoreconf' is the better `autoconf' because it > automatically calls all necessary `autotools'. But `autoreconf' also > creates the subdirectory `autom4t

[Groff] autoconf and autoreconf

2013-04-13 Thread Bernd Warken
I ran `autoconf'. There was a subdirectory `autom4te.cache/' created. First I just deleted it. Then I learned that `autoreconf' is the better `autoconf' because it automatically calls all necessary `autotools'. But `autoreconf' also creates the subdirectory `autom4te.cache/'. I learned that thi