automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:36:51 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:30:34PM CET:
> > On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > I noticed more issues with automake-generated rules and `make -n':
> > > 
> > > 1) The solutions documented in the `Multiple Outputs' node are not safe
> > > for use with `make -n'.
> > > 
> > > 2) Consequently, the lisp rules are broken, but also the Yacc, Vala, and
> > > config.h rules in some cases.
> > > 
> > > 3) The rules to update Makefile, but also those to update and
> > > Makefile.in, are broken in some circumstances, too.
> 
> > > I'm not sure how useful it is to fix (3).  It is not easy as a user to
> > > get GNU make to not update any of the dependencies of the Makefile file,
> > > thanks to its remaking feature (info make "Remaking Makefiles").  I'll
> > > reply with a patch for the 'Makefile' rule, but in order to expose that
> > > bug, you need to use something like this in a subdirectory of a package:
> > >   make -n Makefile AM_MAKEFLAGS="-n Makefile"
> > > 
> > > I don't think users go to this extent just to have `make -n' work, and
> > > they definitely won't get the above right on the first try; but then the
> > > rebuild will already have kicked in, making the issue moot for the
> > > second try.
> > FWIW, I agree that (3) is a minor problem.
> 
> I'm not going to push the patch for (3), I never intended to.
Oh, I didn't get that.  Sorry.
 
> > > Before applying this (to maint, probably) I would appreciate if someone
> > > could look over it to make sure the patch looks sane.  Thanks.
> > I didn't spot any obvious error in the "meat" of the patch.  Just a couple
> > of nits w.r.t. the test cases...
> 
> I agree with all of your nits for the first patch, and have pushed it
> after fixing them.
> 
> Thanks for the review,
> Ralf
Thanks for the patch ;-)

Stefano 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]