Fix Makefile#99
Conversation
|
This PR fixes #96 |
That's not dogma. There are several approaches to Autotools with version control systems. See comparisons: |
|
I've seen many repositories include |
If they are all wrong, why should be you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming And to my point: VCS and release tarball are different in this case. when you build your release with |
|
The idea is that you clone the repo, run |
I have updates my comment above. For your convenience repeating here the additional part: And to my point: VCS and release tarball are different in this case. when you build your release with To @mymedia2: See above as well. Feel free to ask additional questions if you have something to be cleared. |
|
@andy-shev but your link says nothing about version control systems. Why do not you admit a workflow with generated files in Git? It is discussed in Automake docs. |
It's suboptimal to have generated files under VCS. User will regenerate them anyway (you never know what the actual version of autotools on the user's side). I see only disadvantages of this. And on top of that the standard de facto is to produce releases. If you do tags in VCS it's user's responsibility to generate necessary files on their side. |
|
Applying these changes as is is (semi-)wrong. Having the Makefile.in and other prebuilt stuff in the repository is suboptimal and confusing. Makes a little sense. |
Please accept my apologies, experts, I am a beginner. I sincerely apologize and would be very grateful if you could correct me. 🙏🏻🙏🏻 |
It's not your fault per se. The problem I'm escalating is with uselessness of keeping build-generated files in the repository (while I'm pretty much for them in the tarballs from which usually distros create the packages). |
Makefile templates are missing
video/VideoPacketSenderandvideo/VideoFECincludes