Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: in-tree builds

[Jan Hudec]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 11:22:19 +0200, nadim wrote:
> On Saturday 26 June 2004 09:30, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > Juliusz Chroboczek <address@hidden> writes:
> > > TL> I'm saying:  even if you want to get inventory to ignore in-tree
> > > TL> build-products, changing `untagged-source' is _not_ the right way
> > > to TL> do it.   It's too error prone.
> > >
> > > Okay.  So what /is/ the right way to do it?
> 
> You are trying to fix a non tla related problem with tla.
> 
> It might be obvious but why not build outside the tree? Either re-write 
> your makefiles or find a better tool. In-tree build is among the ugliest 
> you can do and unfortunately seen too often. I remember I once had the 
> same prblem with makefiles I didn't have control over, I shadowed the the 
> whole tree to another directory and build there. It wasn't the most 
> comfortable but it worked.

Unfortunately, there are too many tools around the world that don't like
off-tree build. Autoconf/automake allow that (just create a build
directory and call configure with relative path from there). But has
anyone of you ever tried to get MakeMaker (perl build stuff) to build
off-tree?

So sometimes you simply need tla to ignore the build crap. There are two
ways to do it:

    - Set untagged-source to backup, but then you loose the advantage
      of protection against forgotten adds.
    - Set backup (or junk) pattern to include the built stuff. Things
      like .o are obvious, but it's a bit tricky when you generate the
      .c files and do similar things (but you can always generate
      .gen.c ;-))

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature