as.info built in the source directory?

as.info built in the source directory?

[Ben Elliston]

This has been bugging me for a while.  I'm not sure what the correct
behaviour is.  My instinct is that the derived object, as.info, should
be built in the build directory and installed from there, but then I
don't know how this interacts with make dist, which should be
including as.info in the distribution.

Can anyone clarify?  I'm happy to try and fix it, as I prefer to keep
my source trees pristine!

Ben

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[DJ Delorie]

IIRC GNU standards require the info files to be part of the source
distribution, so we have to build them in srcdir.  However, this does
cause the usual read-only-srcdir problems.  Normally, the info files
in cvs should be sufficiently up-to-date such that rebuilding is not
normally required.

This has been discussed in other projects, with no really good
solution.

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[Ben Elliston]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

> IIRC GNU standards require the info files to be part of the source
> distribution, so we have to build them in srcdir.  However, this
> does cause the usual read-only-srcdir problems.  Normally, the info
> files in cvs should be sufficiently up-to-date such that rebuilding
> is not normally required.

They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
included in the source distribution.  The source tree and the
distribution are distinct.

The info files aren't in CVS at all.  We rely on maintainers to have
the tools.  I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't go into
the source tree.

> This has been discussed in other projects, with no really good
> solution.

Yes, it's all downhill from here :-)

Ben

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[Andrew Cagney]

> DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>> IIRC GNU standards require the info files to be part of the source
>>> distribution, so we have to build them in srcdir.  However, this
>>> does cause the usual read-only-srcdir problems.  Normally, the info
>>> files in cvs should be sufficiently up-to-date such that rebuilding
>>> is not normally required.
> 
> 
> They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
> included in the source distribution.  The source tree and the
> distribution are distinct.
> 
> The info files aren't in CVS at all.  We rely on maintainers to have
> the tools.  I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't go into
> the source tree.
> 
> 
>>> This has been discussed in other projects, with no really good
>>> solution.
> 
> 
> Yes, it's all downhill from here :-)

GDB's release process involves a configure/make-info/make-clean in the 
src directory.  This results in the files being included in the distro.

BTW, pot files have a similar problem.

Andrew

RE: as.info built in the source directory?

[Dave Korn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: binutils-owner On Behalf Of Andrew Cagney
> Sent: 13 July 2004 13:50
> To: Ben Elliston
> Cc: DJ Delorie; binutils
> Subject: Re: as.info built in the source directory?
> 
> > DJ Delorie writes:
> > 
> > 
> >>> IIRC GNU standards require the info files to be part of the source
> >>> distribution, so we have to build them in srcdir.  However, this
> >>> does cause the usual read-only-srcdir problems.  
> Normally, the info
> >>> files in cvs should be sufficiently up-to-date such that 
> rebuilding
> >>> is not normally required.
> > 
> > 
> > They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
> > included in the source distribution.  The source tree and the
> > distribution are distinct.
> > 
> > The info files aren't in CVS at all.  We rely on maintainers to have
> > the tools.  I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't go into
> > the source tree.
> > 
> > 
> >>> This has been discussed in other projects, with no really good
> >>> solution.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, it's all downhill from here :-)
> 
> GDB's release process involves a 
> configure/make-info/make-clean in the 
> src directory.  This results in the files being included in 
> the distro.
> 
> BTW, pot files have a similar problem.
> 
> Andrew


  Why are the .info files considered any different from any of the
autogenerated files?  I've wondered why they aren't checked into cvs and
regenerated when their sources are touched in the same way as configure et
al. ?


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[DJ Delorie]

> They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
> included in the source distribution.  The source tree and the
> distribution are distinct.

I don't think the FSF cares how we get the files into a source
distribution, as long as they're there.  A consistent workable
solution would be nice ;-)

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[Ben Elliston]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

> > They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
> > included in the source distribution.  The source tree and the
> > distribution are distinct.
> 
> I don't think the FSF cares how we get the files into a source
> distribution, as long as they're there.  A consistent workable
> solution would be nice ;-)

It seems like this is something that Automake should be helping us
with.  Here's an idea: have info files built in the source tree, but
included in a distribution.  This would mean that "dist" depends on
some degree of "all" (all-info?).  I don't know if that's a good idea
or not.

Ben

Re: as.info built in the source directory?

[Andrew Cagney]

(I thought ben would step in :-)

>>GDB's release process involves a 
>>> configure/make-info/make-clean in the 
>>> src directory.  This results in the files being included in 
>>> the distro.
>>> 
>>> BTW, pot files have a similar problem.
>>> 
>>> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
>   Why are the .info files considered any different from any of the
> autogenerated files?  I've wondered why they aren't checked into cvs and
> regenerated when their sources are touched in the same way as configure et
> al. ?

It's the autoconf/automake files that are the exception.   They are 
generated and checked in to avoid local tool dependency problems (sh 
et.al. can be really querky :-).

Andrew

RE: as.info built in the source directory?

[Dave Korn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Cagney 
> Sent: 14 July 2004 18:13
> To: Dave Korn
> Cc: 'Ben Elliston'; 'DJ Delorie'; binutils
> Subject: Re: as.info built in the source directory?
> 
> (I thought ben would step in :-)

  He did, but off list.  :)

> It's the autoconf/automake files that are the exception.   They are 
> generated and checked in to avoid local tool dependency problems (sh 
> et.al. can be really querky :-).

  More or less what he said.  I was wondering why end-users are expected to
have makeinfo installed and available but aren't expected to have auto*
tools.  But if it's really just the auto{conf,make} files that need special
treatment because of these version problems, that makes sense to me.


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....