[Surfraw-devel] surfraw git tracking question

[James Rowe]

* Ian Beckwith (ianb at erislabs.net) wrote:
> I gather best practice is to not keep Makefile.in & configure in the
> VCS, and to use something like prebuild (or autoreconf) to generate
> them, but I've always kept them in the VCS, partly because that is how
> the original surfraw author did it, but mostly due to lingering mutual
> suspicion and distrust between me and autotools.
> 
> As far as I know, the only downside to doing it this way is that it
> bulks up diffs somewhat.

  I had looked at merging tczy's bing elvi, but noticed I couldn't come
close to replicating the original autotools generated output on my
systems.  If I was to edit configure.in or Makefile.am we will end up
with huge unrelated changes in the generated output that will be
reverted if you were to push a change.

  The only system I have that uses automake-1.11 and autoconf-2.65 is
apparently heavily patched.

  Unless having people switch to debian sid is one of the goals this
might be considered a downside :)

Thanks,

James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/surfraw-devel/attachments/20100203/933cae79/attachment.pgp>