Quoting Dan Harkless ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > [...]
> > *shudder* I don't mind .in versions of simple files (or of Makefiles,
> > where it's already some sort of tradition), but I do mind
> > proliferation of .in files to the extent of having `wget.texi' being
> > auto-generated.
>
> Okay. Well, the only other way to automate the date and version in there
> would be to make some dependencies that'd cause wget.texi to get changed in
> place by sed or something. Part of the changing could be a diff so you
> could verify that sed didn't damage the file while making the change.
IMHO changing a file in place is even worse than having `wget.texi.in'
(which I consider quite ugly as well). Would the solution be adding
another include to wget.texi, that includes an auto-generated version
file? The version file would contain `@set VERSION <version_number>'
(and possibly `@set UPDATED <date>' if we find how to find a timestamp
of wget.texi in a portable way).
-- jan
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Jan Prikryl icq | vr|vis center for virtual reality and
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 83242638 | visualisation http://www.vrvis.at
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
