[Surfraw-devel] surfraw git tracking question

Ian Beckwith ianb at erislabs.net
Fri Feb 5 01:58:28 UTC 2010


On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:04:26PM +0000, James Rowe wrote:
>   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.

Why would they be reverted? Surely git would either merge them or
complain? or am I missing something?

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

As far as I know, any recent automake and any even vaguely recent (post
2.50) autoconf will work. We should use at least automake 1.10 though,
as there was a (minor) security fix that I think was only fixed in 1.10
and 1.11. I think I mentioned 1.11 in HACKING because its what I
switched to after reading of the security fix, and I knew it worked.

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


So, do you think we should drop the generated files from the vcs?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, really.


Ian Beckwith - ianb at erislabs.net - http://erislabs.net/ianb/
GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5  4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 237 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/surfraw-devel/attachments/20100205/eda277bd/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Surfraw-devel mailing list