Re: Can we remove bison output from cvs?

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
 >  
 >   In message <369956F2.649575E5@tssc.co.nz>you write:
 >   > Is the same feasable for auto* generated files?  I doen't see the need
 >   > for *any* generated files to be included in CVS (gperf etc included). 
 > I think we can generally work in that direction over time.  However, some
 > files like configure will probably stay in the repository.
 >  
 > It's a matter of what makes the CVS repo easiest to use for the largest group
 > of people.  Being able to configure and build without retrieving gperf,
 > bison, autoconf, automake, autogen, m4 (must use gnu-m4 for autoconf), texinfo
 > etc is a good thing.
 > jeff

	Agreed!

I'm able to test multiple platforms by mooching off of guest accounts. :-)

I don't have the luxury of getting the sysadmin to install the latest
copy of packageX and don't want to maintain these in my home directory. 
Building egcs already takes up enough space without having 10 other
tools installed in my home dir. 

You also have the problem of not having the right version of packageX
installed when you build.  If my system has bison < 1.25 installed, then
I am not testing what will eventually be the release.  (Again this
assumes I don't have the ability to upgrade the system bison or the
quota to maintain my own copy.)


	If its not already too late to stop this train (wreck), please
let's NOT remove generated files from the repo. 


		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Icon CMT Corp.