At 3:48 PM -0400 5/26/01, Greg Hudson wrote:
>Greg Stein wrote:
>> Yup. It is quite easy to build the one thing you're concerned
> > with. We don't have a notion of "everything in this directory",
> > but when you consider it: that is a bit bogus (the collection
> > of targets in any given directory is rather arbitrary w.r.t.
> > the desire to build something specific).
>
>In theory it might be bogus, but in reality directories usually
>have a solid meaning, like "the foo library and its tests".
>
>The arguments for a single Makefile are valid but not even close
>to compelling for real projects, and so a single Makefile winds
>up being merely bizarre and different for no good reason. Having
>to "(cd ../..; make libsvn_foo)" instead of just "make" isn't the
>end of the world, but it will irritate people who are used to
>doing it the normal way.
While this is a tangent to the general subversion topics, it is
one which is of some interest to me as I've also found automake
and friends rather frustrating to deal with in some circumstances.
I am generally convinced that there MUST be some way to improve
on it, although I must admit I haven't quite figured out what
that might be...
For this specific point, couldn't the subdirectories include a
Makefile which did the right '(cd ../..; make blah)' step? That
would maintain the single makefile, but it would not force people
to remember the oddities of this project. (more importantly,
it saves people from having to remember how many '../'s they
need to get the right Makefile based on their current directory).
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:30 2006