Gnulib files are typically not autogenerated -- they are hand-maintained source code files.
In my book they are autogenerated, we do not update them "manually", a script does it for us. We don't have any control over what we pull in other than `get the latest'. I believe auto-generated files like those generated by autoconf and automake should not be in CVS, and other files, that people are likely to edit, should be in CVS. It is unlikley that you will ever edit gnulib stuff, any changes you do will get lost in the next update. It is like editing configure directly. Another way to look at it is this: It is useful to be able to do cvs diff or C-x v = on a gnulib file, in case you need to work on the file. I don't believe it is ever useful to be able to do cvs diff or C-x v = on a autoconf/automake generated file. Could you explain why this would be useful? The changes would get lost in the next update. If I find a bug in gnulib, then I would fetch a copy of gnulib and fix the bug there. Same thing with autoconf. _______________________________________________ Bug-inetutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-inetutils
