[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNUmakefile and 'make install'

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: GNUmakefile and 'make install'
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:24:21 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> Avoiding recompilation during 'make all' due to a version change was the very 
> reason that git-version-gen was invented.  Recompiling the version string is 
> EXPENSIVE - it costs a LOT of time to recompile the world because config.h 
> was 
> touched because autoconf reran to pick up a new version string.

Stepping back for a minute: a minor change like a version-number bump
should not force the system to recompile everything in sight.  In the
long run, we should look into fixing the normal build process to put
the version string somewhere else than config.h.

> One other possibility I've thought about.  We could have 'make install' check 
> git-version-gen, and abort rather than install if it is out-of-date with 
> reality (of course, if .tarball-version exists, it will never be 
> out-of-date).  
> Since it avoids recompilation during 'make install' for developers, it obeys 
> the letter of the law; but it seems to break the spirit of the law for 
> failing 
> to install at all.  If we go this route, then the failure output from make 
> must 
> be explicit that 'make install' was aborted due to version mismatch and 
> that 'autoreconf' or 'make dist' will fix it.

That sounds like a reasonable approach for now.

Sorry if I'm asking questions you've already answered before, but I'd
rather have "make install" be read-only in the working directory.
That's a longstanding tradition I'm loath to overturn.

reply via email to

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