On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 03:44:25AM -0800, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote: > > > > Makefile.cvs: why not use the ./autogen.sh script ? > > Most of the projects i see use an autogen.sh script. I didn't find the > > Makefile.cvs except in Qt apps. > > and why run make -f Makefile.cvs when i can simply ./autogen.shh ? > > with a proper autogen.sh you can pass arguments to the "configure" > > script. That's one. > > The second is that writing a proper Makefile.cvs forces the developer to > > learn the syntax of Makefiles, That's bad. > > and with the ./autogen script you can produce meaningfull errors and > > instructions on where to get the missing packages from the autotools "I > > think this can be done with the Makefile.cvs, but perhaps not that easy > > ?" > > I can't think of more reasons as I'm typing this in a hurry! > > Again, the requirement is to have a Makefile.cvs present. Having an > autogen.sh boostrap.sh or whatever you would like to call it is entirely > up to you. > And why don't we use the autogen.sh ? Most of the projects are using it already. > Learning how to write Makefiles should not be a problem. If you are a > developer and don't know how to write a Makefile then you have some > serious problems ;) We are not judging the development skills here, And we are not forcing the developer to learn new things just because we want to > > > I don't see a reason for the RCS headers ? why is it required ?? > > It just is. I can give reasons, but we can argue over it for years to > come. Consistency, forcing the user to explain what the file does, > making it easy for others (and the developer) to know what revision he's > looking at.. are among a few reasons that come to mind. > I don't see these necessary, but it's Ok. > > doxygen ? I don't think that's required if I'm not writing a library. > > The Doxygen requirement is only there to force commenting the code. The > comments should be done using the Doxygen style comments.. which are > fairly easy and flexible. No one is required to use all the features > that come with Doxygen (they are pretty elaborate). Simply commenting > each and every function at a minimum. I have a suggestion here: I'm using Gtk, I think using gtk-doc 'd be better than doxygen Another developer is using Qt/Kde, then use their documentation framework. etc... Only use doxygenn if No documentation framework is there for the toolkit used/or if you are developing a console application. > > > ChangeLog, Comeon guys DON'T complicate things. It's important but I > > don't think it's mandatory. > > It is mandatory if you intend to make a release. I don't remember when > was the last time I grabbed a prgram that did not have a changelog file. > If there is one that did not have a changelog file, I would not be > taking it seriously.. since the author would imply that he is not > tracking its progress and so he is not serious enough. > Does this have to be in the standard ChangeLog format specified by the GNU project ?? > > even for stable and odd for development. Are we maintaining such large > > projects ? > > Please leave the versioning system for each project maintainer. > > This is one of the main reasons that prompted the whole developer guide > to begin with. It most certainly must be made as a rule across all > projects. A verioning scheme/system must exist. This is irrelevant of > the size of the project. I most certainly would not back down from my > position on that. > for individual projects, i think it doesn't make sence. but when we are to release togeather, then we can enforce this. > When I wrote that, I did make a lot of considerations. For example, I > did not want to break how Katoob was being versioned, so I made it so > alpha releases hold the dates as a suffix. > and sure the new guidelines'll be followed by me regardless of what i think about them ;-) -- ---------------- -- Katoob Main Developer Linux registered user #224950, ICQ #58475622 -- Don't send me any attachment in Micro$oft (.DOC, .PPT) format please Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Preferable attachments: .PDF, .HTML, .TXT Thanx for adding this text to Your signature -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT d-(++)@ s+(++):->+++ a-- C+++$>++++ UL+++$>++++ P+++$>+++++ L+++(++++)$>+++++ E>+++ W++?>$ N+>+++ o? K-? !w++ !O !M !V !PS@ !PE@ Y+ PGP+++ t? 5? !X R? tv-- b+@ DI D+ G-- e++>+++ h-->++ !r y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature