[GRASS5] Thought on my CVS problem

[Justin Hickey]

Hi Bernhard

Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> I would suggest that someone bundling the source up,
> has to create this files. We might want another makefile target
> or script for this: Creating platform independant files for
> configure, flex and bison results and cleaning up again.
> 
> We might fix a little tarballs with just these files generated
> for developers to test from time to time on their installations.
> 
> Someone who is a developer using the CVS
> does not necessarily need the files as I think that we can demand
> from a developer that he/she gets the tools first.
> So we can remove them from the CVS.
> 
> Originally I just wanted to point out that we need this files in
> a tarball source distribution.
> 
> Addressing your other question:
> Only if the source file changes (e.g. configure.in) a remake of
> configure is needed. So if you have a tarball with the current
> configure there is no need to regenerate it and make won't do it.

First of all, I think there is a misunderstanding about the configure
script. I agree with you that the configure script should stay in the
CVS tree. Perhaps the misunderstanding came from my original post that
suggested that src/include/config.h be removed from the tree. I thought
that config.h was platform dependent since it is generated by configure.
Am I wrong with this?

Anyway, my contention is more for the lex and yacc generated files. I
think I am starting to understand the situation more. Let me see if I've
got this straight.

You propose that we remove these files from the CVS tree but bundle them
with our source code releases. This sounds reasonable, except I still
don't understand what will happen, for example, with my machine. Let's
assume I download a source tarball that has the generated lex and yacc
files. When I compile this on my machine, I have lex and yacc installed
and they get called by Make. Thus, the pre-generated files are now
replaced by ones generated by my version of lex and yacc. As I have
shown, these files can be drastically different from the pre-generated
files. My main concern now would be, do the new files have the same
functionality as the ones that they overwrote? I don't know due to my
lack of knowledge of lex and yacc.

If we can't answer this question reasonably, then should we guarantee
somehow that the generated files in the tarball never get replaced by
the local machine? Or is it safe to assume an appropriate file, although
different, will be equal in functionality, and perhaps even more
efficient since it may have been generated with vendor specific
programs?

Thank you for your patience with this. I sometimes feel like an idiot
when I need to discuss things I don't understand :)

-- 
Sincerely,

Jazzman (a.k.a. Justin Hickey)  e-mail: jhickey at hpcc.nectec.or.th
High Performance Computing Center
National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC)
Bangkok, Thailand
==================================================================
People who think they know everything are very irritating to those
of us who do.  ---Anonymous

Jazz and Trek Rule!!!
==================================================================

---------------------------------------- 
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'