[Gllug] [OT] software packaging

[Stig Brautaset]

* James Hollingshead <james at hollo.org> spake thus:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 11:12:42PM +0100, Stig Brautaset wrote:
> > Should I be using autoproject/autoconf/automake for my small-ish
> > programs?  I had a brief look at autoproject and think maybe it is a bit
> > overkill... 

[snip]

> I've not used autoproject, but am a definite fan of autoconf/automake
> even for smallish projects. 

[snip]

> From the developer's point of view I do find it disturbing how much
> stuff gets generated

[snip]

> On the other hand the amount of that build system you actually need to
> write is about 10 lines to start with. I normally start with just:
> 
> configure.in:
>   AC_INIT(hello.c)
>   AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(hello, 0.0.1)
>   AM_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h)
> 
>   AC_PROG_INSTALL
>   AC_PROG_CC
> 
>   AC_OUTPUT(Makefile)
> 
> and Makefile.am:
>   bin_PROGRAMS = hello
>   hello_SOURCES = hello.c hello.h
> 
> and a bootstrap command of:
>   aclocal && autoheader && automake --foreign --add-missing && autoconf

Aki, a question somewhat related. More of a personal preference issue:

I am using CVS to manage my project. Should I include only the
configure.in / Makefile.am in my cvs repository and run 
'aclocal && autoheader && automake --foreign --add-missing && autoconf'
before tar'ing down for 'shipping', or should I include all the files
created by autoconf/automake in my repository? 

If I planned on allowing anonymous CVS access I would obviously have to
include all the files, but I am not planning such a thing.

Stig
-- 
brautaset.org


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug