Hello, Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > >> So, we still have a decision to make: whether to delete these generated >> files (possibly in a snippet) to avoid using pre-generated non-source >> files in our build. I would be in favor of it. >> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. I’d be in favor of removing these, especially since that seems to be an easy change, but… > Perhaps we can consider our existing packages as a precedent. Many > packages include files in their source distribution that were > auto-generated by the Autotools. For example, consider the "configure" > script that Autoconf generates. Is there a significant difference > between the "configure" script and the "pre-generated non-source files" > you're talking about? Indeed, there’s a long tradition in GNU to ship generated code to facilitate bootstrapping. There’s configure, Makefile.in, etc., and there’s also Bison- and Flex-generated files often. I have mixed feelings about this. I think it’s great to be able to use these pre-generated files; our bootstrap graph would be much more complicated or even out of reach if we were to re-generate everything. OTOH, it’s true that this is the elephant in the room in terms of bootstrapping. Maybe it’s a can of worms we’d rather leave aside. :-) Thoughts? Ludo’.
