[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:43:45 +0200

> From: Edward Welbourne <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:08:02 +0100
> > How about moving them to a subdirectory, where they could bit-rot out
> > of sight?
> In the presence of a version control system, even one as basic as CVS,
> deletion isn't fundamentally worse than leaving them to bit-rot out of
> site - they can always be recovered from the version-control system

Not for people who only get the release tarballs.  And users of
platforms supported by those files typically aren't tracking the
development repo, and typically aren't fluent enough with VCSes to
know how to recover deleted files.

> and has the virtue of not cluttering up the source tree with things that
> aren't adequately supported.

They are supported, Paul just wants to find ways to lower the burden.

> Once you've built GNU make itself, *all* other operations are best
> encoded in your generic portable makefile, IMO.  Of course, Paul might
> want to exercise some restraint on just how many things go into it, but
> the mere fact of insisting everything in it be portable and generic
> should suffice to limit creature feep.

That's fine with me, provided that it's possible from a portable
Makefile.  If that is hard, having a separate script is good enough,

> I would suppose testing to be one of the more natural things to
> include in such a make file - rather than as a separate script.
> After all, if you're testing make, doing so via a make-file is
> itself part of testing it works !

Yes, but if that fails, running just the tests, perhaps one by one,
might be a desirable feature.  For starters, it makes debugging

reply via email to

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