The cure to that is to mean to commit autoconf/automake-generated files.
KS2011: Afternoon topics
Posted Oct 31, 2011 20:46 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Which, IMO, is worse than having them in the source tree after their generation. The autoconf/automake *generated* files belong in the build directory.
Posted Oct 31, 2011 20:55 UTC (Mon) by fuhchee (guest, #40059)
If you say so. :-)
Posted Nov 1, 2011 14:30 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
It's certainly not true if your source directory is a release tarball (or other release medium). Autoconf et al should have been run for you by that point, and the result tested. That way end users don't need anything but a shell and ordinary build tools to run the build. (This is one area where cmake falls down: all the builders need a copy of it.)
Posted Nov 1, 2011 14:41 UTC (Tue) by fuhchee (guest, #40059)
In practice, if people are pragmatic, it's fine.
Developers can regenerate the files at will with any version that works.
In the case of version control branch merge problems, regenerate them again.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds