Re: [Freeciv-Dev] CVS: dwp: Autogenerated files from previous batch of chan...

[David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mitch Davis wrote:
> 
> Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > 
> > Are you folks sure it is a wise idea to have autogenerated files in
> > the CVS tree? They're at best redundant, and at worse outdated.

> Would it be feasible to include _no_ autogenerated files in
> the release, except for configure?  I think the only people
> who need them are developers or package maintainers.

I think not, as configure needs, eg, Makefile.in, and config.h.in,
which are auto-generated files.

Actually I think the set of files that we include in the release 
tarball is just fine, as that's the framework automake/autoconf
were designed around.  That is, a developer with all the right 
(ie, GNU ;-) tools, who autogenerates all the appropriate files 
and then makes a release tarball for the masses, who may not have 
such tools.  I believe even Gnome put all the autogenerated files
in their official releases?

The complication comes with CVS, ie, distributed development,
where people may have slightly different tools.  Given the
above, I don't see a "developer's kit" helping here, because 
for the release the files are included, and for CVS it would
be a hassle keeping them up-to-date, except by having them 
in CVS.

I think our options for CVS are either to include the auto-files
and be careful with checkins, or to not include them and require
all cvs-users to have the right tools.  (I prefer the former.)

But releasing separate add-on kits to build different package
formats would seem feasible.  It would also mean that we can 
more easily add or change packaging information without a whole 
new freeciv release (which I think is similar to what John was
saying regarding Debian).

-- David