[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cache directory is not removed
From: |
Earnie Boyd |
Subject: |
Re: cache directory is not removed |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:46:25 -0400 |
"Steven G. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > So now I run `configure -C' always. I use the cache files to
> > determine problem areas of my runtime libraries.
>
> Bill Wendling wrote:
> > BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache file by
> > default was a bad idea, in my opinion. We actually use that file quite a
> > bit.
>
> Generating config.cache by default caused recurrent problems with users
> who would inadvertantly use stale config.cache files.
>
Notice that I said that I use `configure -C' as a suggestion for the
users who want config.cache. There was a point in time when I didn't
know what a config.cache was. There was a point in my life when
config.cache was bad. Then I came to realize how it was useful to me.
Yes, if I change the runtime, I must recreate the config.cache.
> The configure script is intended for *users*, who by far outnumber
> developers and are far less capable of realizing what config.cache is
> doing. It doesn't make sense to optimize the uncommon case (the
> developers, who are perfectly capable of using -C or of modifying
> config.site to make it the default) at the expense of the common case
> (the users).
>
I agree.
> Akim wrote:
> > They don't have understood the point. And then, why keep the .o too?
> > And the .deps?
>
> Again, it's a matter of tradeoffs and optimizing for the common case.
> On the one hand, programs spewing files as a side-effect that the user
> didn't explicitly request is generally undesirable. On the other hand,
> developers change source code files and recompile *very* often, so the
> extra speed (which can be orders of magnitude for .o!) is worth the
> filesystem litter.
>
> >I don't think you realize the impact of using the cache here. On the
> >file utils, on my machine, it means that running automake, autoconf
> >and autoheader is about 1min long. Remove the cache, it's three
> >minutes.
>
> Running autoconf + automake + autoheader is not a common operation for
> most developers (autoconf developers don't count!), and in such a
> context I would argue that one minute vs. three is not that significant.
>
There are a number of packages that if you have these installed will run
them for you. I don't think it good but ...
Earnie.
- Re: cache directory is not removed, (continued)
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Earnie Boyd, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Sam Steingold, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Steven G. Johnson, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Akim Demaille, 2002/06/07
- Message not available
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Steven G. Johnson, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Steven G. Johnson, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Andreas Buening, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed,
Earnie Boyd <=
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Akim Demaille, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Akim Demaille, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Ralf Corsepius, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Bill Wendling, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Akim Demaille, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Sam Steingold, 2002/06/06
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Akim Demaille, 2002/06/07
- Re: cache directory is not removed, Sam Steingold, 2002/06/07