Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>> Automatic recreation of build files.
>> * Makefile.in, configure.in:
>> I've added some rules to provoke the automatic remaking when
>> the requisite files change. In this way people can just type
>> 'svn up && make'.
I can *partially* see the point of this, but I'm not fully convinced.
I can see how it might be slightly helpful for these files to be rebuilt
when "svn up" brings down changes, *but* these files don't change very
often, and a simple "./autogen.sh" suffices to update everything.
Also, you are *never* going to be able to make it fully automatic, because
at very least people need to run ./gen-make.py when a new .c file is added.
I'm going to make some specific observations on the patch below, but that
doesn't mean I would necessarily commit it if those comments were acted
>> Index: Makefile.in
>> --- Makefile.in (revisiÃ³n: 14535)
>> +++ Makefile.in (copia de trabajo)
>> @@ -575,6 +575,28 @@
>> $(INSTALL_DATA) $$file $(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/$$inst; \
>> +$(srcdir)/configure: $(srcdir)/configure.in
>> + cd $(srcdir) && autoconf
No accounting for changes to build/ac-macros/*.m4
./autogen.sh allow alternate autoconf programs to be specified through
>> +# autoheader might not change svn_private_config.h.in, so touch a stamp
>> file. +$(srcdir)/subversion/svn_private_config.h.in: $(srcdir)/stamp-h.in
>> +$(srcdir)/stamp-h.in: configure.in
>> + cd $(srcdir) && autoheader
>> + echo timestamp > $(srcdir)/stamp-h.in
Stamp file should be a sibling to the file it relates to.
>> +subversion/svn_private_config.h: stamp-h
>> +stamp-h: subversion/svn_private_config.h.in config.status
>> + ./config.status
>> +Makefile: Makefile.in config.status
>> + ./config.status
Would it not be better to save time and regenerate only the files that
actually need it?
ie. ./config.status specific-file-name
>> +config.status: $(srcdir)/configure $(srcdir)/stamp-h.in
>> + ./config.status --recheck
>> +build-outputs.mk: build.conf
>> + ./gen-make.py build.conf
srcdir. And don't specify build.conf on the command line, since that is not
the typical invocation.
And lastly, is it really safe to rely on timestamps to prevent these rules
firing in release tarball versions?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue May 3 15:18:57 2005