Jan Prikryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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).
Well, it already happens with the .po files, and that process is a lot more
complicated than a timestamp and version number insertion.
> 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).
Ah, much simpler, yes. I don't know why I was thinking those directives
couldn't go in a @include file. We'll have to play with that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To help prevent SPAM contamination,
GNU Wget co-maintainer | please do not mention this email
http://sunsite.dk/wget/ | address in Usenet posts -- thank you.
