-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Wu
Sent: den 24 juni 2014 16:22
To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Fwd: Re: Storing Generated Code in Git [Was: master 9079e3a: Cheat and try to fix the generated file manually.]
On Tuesday 24 June 2014 15:42:38 Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2014-06-24 5:26 GMT+02:00 Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:17:32PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> >> > >> So perhaps what we should do is:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> not check generated code into Git;
> +1
+1
> >> > >>
> >> > >> put all generated code into the source tarballs.
> >
> > +2
> How about releasing two tarballs, one with and one without the generated files?
> We could count the downloads.
I wouldn't bother.
- Git is for all plain sources.
- A distribution tarball should contain all files from git plus
auto-generated ones. This is intended for users who just want to
build wireshark without doing modifications to the auto-generated
files. If wanted, they could still regenerate autogenerated files.
autotools should be able to generate that tarball, I am not so sure about cmake.
Developers build WS from git anyway and should have the tools ready to generate files. If the tools are not available, then that part can simply be disabled. That would save compile time too :-)
Kind regards,
Peter
Not that that effectively disqualifies Windows as a development platform, at least one that is easy to use by directly checking out from git and building....
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
