Subject: Re: CVS commit: gnusrc/gnu/dist/autoconf
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/14/2001 15:33:44
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I guess my main question is: what are we optimizing for here? A small
amount of disk space?
It's not an issue on cvs updates more than once per version imported.
It's a few k of disk space, and it's a divergence between the dist dir
and the imported distribution. What does it buy us?
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Todd Vierling wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Jim Wise wrote:
>: Is this really the right thing to do?
>: I've often been concerned that a.) removing large numbers of files from
>: dist/ dubdirectories makes for a bunch of extra work when importing the
>: next version of a package, and that b.) doing so makes for very odd cvs
>: histories if we decide we do want to use those files later -- suppose
>: that we add a flag to autoconf, and want to update the .info
>: documentation -- will we re-add the .texi files at that date?
>This is in the interest of keeping the in-tree copy of autoconf at a minimum
>level. It is not built by default, and will be used to generate exactly one
>file by toolchain maintainers: src/tools/compat/configure.
>If we feel at some point in the future that this copy of autoconf will have
>an expanded role (and I hope not, actually), the .texi files can be re-added
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----