This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: libgetopt++ and setup and libstdc++
- From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Cc: Earnie Boyd <Cygwin-Apps at Cygwin dot Com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:22:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: libgetopt++ and setup and libstdc++
- References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5F2F@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com]
>
> > > *** IMPORTANT ***
> > > libgetopt++ does not store the autotool created files in CVS. You'll
> > > need to run ./bootstrap.sh in it's source dir to create them.
> > > *****************
> > >
> >
> > That's goes against the FSF standard and the recommendations
> > of the autotools groups themselves. You shouldn't require
> > the user to have the autotools installed. That's the reason
> > every package always has all of the needed files for
> > configure to execute.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. This is only for CVS. Distributions and -src
> packages will naturally have the autotool generated files included.
>
> However, CVS is _not_ a distribution, and anyone developing from CVS
> will require the autotool suite if they make any non-trivial changes.
>
A source distribution is a source distribution regardless of how the
source is distributed. Cvs is a viable source distribution medium even
though it's purpose is to aid developers in development.
> That's part of why AM_MAINTAINER_MODE exists, and what 'make dist-all'
> is for.
>
> If I was clear, and you still think CVS should have those files...
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_43.html#SEC43
> paragraph 4. The bootstrap recipe is what I follow, and it's been very
> reliable and easy to use on several projects.
>
I'll have to take a look. But, yes I would still argue that cvs is a
viable means to distribute source.
Earnie.