From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 11 1999 - 17:10:56 EST
I think Archie and I are in complete agreement here.
- Godmar
>
> Godmar Back writes:
> > > (a) Is self-modifying repository files
> >
> > yes, I think Makefile.in are expected to be modified if you
> > modify a .am file.
>
> I didn't do anything except configure and build it.
>
> > > (b) Is doing so in such a way that causes CVS conflicts
> >
> > This is unacceptable.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > (c) Is modifying source files even when building from a different
> > > directory, making a build from a 'read-only' source impossible
> >
> > Well, we've had one case already where we did modify CVS sources, and that is
> > Klasses.jar. Ignoring the "whether Klasses.jar should be in the CVS
> > repos" discussion for a moment, this has worked fine so far. At least
> > that's my impression.
> >
> > My position is that b) is clearly unacceptable, but I could live with a)
> > IF AND ONLY if it is ensured that such modifications are not done
> > accidentally (i.e., without my changing .am files or such.)
> > If --enable-maintainer mode is what it takes to make that work,
> > then we'll have to undeprecate it.
>
> My opinion is simple.. if you're doing 'developer stuff' like modifying
> .am files or rebuilding Klasses.jar, then it's OK for repository files
> to be changed accordingly. Otherwise, they shouldn't be getting modified
> as part of a normal build (especially from a different directory).
>
> > I also don't want modification to .in to happen simply because I use cvs
> > update instead of cvs checkout.
>
> Same here.
>
> Anyway, I'll see if it happens again with the latest version of stuff.
>
> Thanks,
> -Archie
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:38 EDT