RE: libxl dirty in tree after libxl build

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Durrant writes ("RE: libxl dirty in tree after libxl build"):
> Can't we check in a file with a different name 'e.g.' with something
> like '.tmpl' on the end, which we copy into place in case the
> flex/bison don't generate such a file? That way the checked in file
> never gets dirtied.

That would be possible in principle.  It would be necessary to do
something fiddly in the Makefile runes to make sure that the build
failed if you updated the input files but didn't have flex/bison.

Another alterntaive, of course, would be to say that we don't support
such ancient versions of flex/bison, or systems without those tools at
all, and simply delete the generated files.  I forget the details but
the relevant changes were released upstream at least a decade ago.

But I think that at this stage of the release it would be best to
update the files as has been our practice hitherto.  I am not keen on
the idea of inventing new weird Makefile wrinkles during the freeze,
unless we have no reasonable alternative.

Patches will follow in a moment.

Ian.