[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: progress of Subversion autoconfiscation

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-07-16 05:03:29 CEST

I don't think anybody wants to *require* gmake, so take that out of the
picture.

I do believe all the current make programs provide an include directive. If
not, then Apache is going to have some serious problems :-)

Cheers,
-g

On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 02:42:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 02:07:55PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 03:27:03PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > >...
> > > `Recursive Make Considered Harmful' is an interesting paper, and he's
> > > right that Make has been seriously outgrown these days. But his
> > > solution was to write his own build tool, which is an option we don't
> > > have. Using a build tool other than Make would discourage people from
> > > building Subversion at all.
> >
> > Euh... can't you still use some of the non-recursive concepts with make? I
> > don't see that we need to use his "cook" program.
>
> If we're willing to require GNU make, we should have no trouble doing
> nonrecursive makefiles. And if, as the automake people claim, all
> modern make implementations have an 'include' directive, we might be
> able to do it without requiring gmake - it'd just require more typing
> in the subdirectory fragments, is all.
>
> Cook has a cleaner syntax and more flexible pattern rules, but I
> wouldn't consider that reason enough to switch. And it knows about
> one rule building multiple files all at once (like yacc generating a
> parser and a header simultaneously) which I've wanted added to gmake
> for years. But again, that's not reason enough to switch.
>
> A point in favor of recursive make is that you get the ability to
> rebuild just one directory, for free. That is harder - not
> impossible, mind - to arrange with nonrecursive make.
>
> My ex-boss was opposed to autoconf because it meant he couldn't just
> blindly type 'make' at the top level of a directory tree, and he had
> to remember to edit Makefile.in instead of Makefile. Now he tended to
> go overboard on things, but I do think he had a point. And if we are
> willing to require GNU make, one of the things I'd like to try doing
> with it is making that work again. It could be done by putting all
> the autoconf substitutions in a separate file, which configure edits
> and the top-level Makefile includes.
>
> zw

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:05 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.