Re: [Simulavr-devel] SimulAVR Compilation Problem

[Galen Seitz]

Bill <address@hidden> wrote:

> Paul Schlie wrote:
> 
> >>From: Bill <address@hidden>
> >>Do you have any experience with autotools? I've found them very
> >>frustrating to work with...the simplest things are not easy to figure
> >>out....either that's just the way it is or I'm going about it wrong. I'd
> >>really like a competent second pair of eyes on my build process....  I
> >>know, I'm fishing now ;-)
> >>
> >
> >Unfortunately no, therefore the interest in avoiding their use; sorry.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> That was only the second question... I'm not familiar with GNU
> standards that much. Are there resources you can point me to to
> support the notion that putting these generated files in CVS is
> standard practice? Even though you don't know autotools, this might
> point me in the direction of those who do...
> 

In most cases, tarballs can be built without running the autotools.
Many, many build/install instructions consist of:

./configure
make
make install

If everyone had to run the autotools in order to build from a tarball,
all sorts of builds would be breaking in all sorts of ways (or alternatively,
the autotools developers might feel a bit more pressure to maintain some
compatibility between releases :-)).

A google search for Makefile.in shows it under cvs control for many
projects.  Some poking around on sourceforge or savannah should confirm
this.

galen