Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> writes:
> > On the topic of make, have you all read "Recursive Make Considered
> > Harmful" at http://www.tip.net.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html
> I read it, I don't believe a word of it. The whole thing is founded on
> a bogus example, to which is added specious reasoning
> and an assumption
> that everyone wants to use GCC as compiler plus a nonstandardly-patched
> version of GNU make. This is not the real world.
It doesn't depend on using gcc. The GNU make patch referred to was put
into the core GNU make distribution a long time ago.
> The Postgres build setup is certainly far from ideal, but IMHO the only
> thing *really* wrong with it is that we're not constructing accurate
> dependency lists by default. I believe Peter E. is planning to
> fix that...
It is pretty nice if you use his recommendation to be able to type make
at the top level and be told immediately that everything is up to date
rather than seeing 10 pages of messages scroll past. I think you've
dismissed him a little easily about the problems of properly specifying
dependancies with recursive make.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Broytmann||Date: 2000-07-01 08:08:18|
|Subject: Re: Built with PostgreSQL (images)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-07-01 05:43:50|
|Subject: Re: Makefile for parser |