Re: make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue)
Date: 2000-10-19 17:17:58
Message-ID: 9622.971975878@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Just a sanity check: Does anyone use `make depend'? Does everyone know
> about the better way to track dependencies? Does every-/anyone know why
> `make depend' is worse? I just don't want to bother fixing something
> that's dead anyway...
> (helpful reading: http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/autodep.html)

Well, you'll still have to touch every makefile :-( --- but I see no
good reason not to remove "make depend" if we have support for a better
solution. Comments anyone?

One thought here: "make depend" has the advantage of being
non-intrusive, in the sense that you're not forced to use it and if
you don't use it it doesn't cost you anything. In particular,
non-developer types probably just want to build from scratch when they
get a new distribution --- they don't want to expend cycles on making
useless (for them) dependency files, and they most certainly don't want
to be forced to use gcc, nor to install a makedepend tool. I trust what
you have in mind doesn't make life worse for people who don't need
dependency tracking.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2000-10-19 17:22:20 [ANNC][RFC] crypto hashes for PostgreSQL 7.0, 7.1
Previous Message Trewern, Ben 2000-10-19 16:31:52 RE: Automation/scheduling of Backup stratetgy