[darcs-users] darcs patch: cleanup default boring

Trent W. Buck trentbuck at gmail.com
Mon Oct 13 03:29:14 UTC 2008

Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen at bessy.de> writes:

>>> [...] it is questionable whether we want to ignore libraries and
>>> binaries by default, see these lines
>>>   # objects and libraries; lo and la are libtool things
>>>   \\.(obj|a|exe|so|lo|la)$
>> What is the use case for darcs recording such files?
> I think the standard case is that you don't have the sources for
> (e.g.) a library but want to be able to upgrade to new versions. But I
> am not insisting this should be changed, merely asking.

I've actually tried to do this, and it rapidly becomes painful as soon
as you have more than one architecture, or more than one ABI, or even
wildly different versions of libc.  I think keeping convenience copies
of binaries like liblua.la -- as opposed to a convenience copy of the
source (lua/*.[ch]) -- is a false economy and should be discouraged.

I suppose there might be a case for it in the proprietary community if
you don't actually have access to the source of middleware libraries
that you're linking to.  I don't have any experience in that community.

So: I advocate binary extensions remaining boring by default, at least
until someone gives a strong real-world use case for changing that.

>> The only cases I can think of (providing convenience copies to users)
>> would IMO be served better by a predist hook when creating release
>> tarballs.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list