[fdo-internals] Remove Generated Files
greg.boone at autodesk.com
Mon Nov 5 20:22:35 EST 2007
Based on Mateusz's latest comments, what is your feeling?
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mateusz
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:41 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Remove Generated Files
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> Greg Boone wrote:
>>> IMHO... I would seriously consider removing all generated files
>>> and require the user call build_linux.sh, which is what the
>>> documentation suggests now.
>> I'm all for that. IMO this is a very good practice, especially if a
>> project does follow GNU configuration based on ./configure script,
>> Makefile.am files and autotools chain.
>> In comparison, this is not true for GDAL, so it would be not easy
>> to remove ./configure and brothers from the repo.
> I, on the other hand, think this is a bad idea. If the environment
> is at all sensitive to the version of automake and autoconf, forcing
> developers working from SVN to rebuild all the derived files runs the
> significant risk of problems related to them having the wrong
> versions of automake and autoconf.
> I've been driven away from involvement in a number of projects by
> this sort of a annoyances, and I think we would be making it harder
> for people to be involved in FDO causually.
Yes, I agree with Frank that there is such risk.
What I don't understand is that current building configuration
regenerates ./configure & friends always by default, so current solution
does not avoid this kind of problems pointed by Frank.
Second, even if we provide ./configure, users still *have* to generate
Makefile.in and Makefile files, so appropriate tools & its versions are
What I want to say here is that not removing configure does not solve
potential problems with autotools versions.
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the fdo-internals