[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency
From: |
Alexander Malmberg |
Subject: |
Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:26:59 +0100 |
Nicola Pero wrote:
[snip]
> Even if ... even if I still think that technically this dependency is
> wrong. 'Compiling' (generating the files from the sources) and
> 'installing' (copying the files into the installation dirs) are separated
> tasks. The system is much more flexible if you have the option of running
> only one of those two stages, or both of them, at your choice. If instead
> 'installing' always implies 'compiling', this flexibility is lost as there
> is no way to perform the installation step without the compilation step.
Which makes perfect sense: the 'install' step depends on the 'compile'
step, and make is supposed to track these dependencies for us. You're
trading "flexibility" for correctness.
[snip]
> About this, the GNU coding standards say -
>
> "If possible, write the install target rule so that it does not modify
> anything in the directory where the program was built, provided `make all'
> has just been done. This is convenient for building the program under one
> user name and installing it under another."
>
> This looks like a hack to me, to somewhat support a different usage
> pattern (building as one user, installing as another user, with the two
> operations separated) which can not really be supported if install depends
> on all.
It's hack because it isn't the primary goal. To me, the coding standards
read that 'install' should always depend on 'all', and _"if possible"_
(without breaking the dependency) 'make all; make all' shouldn't do
anything the second time.
[snip]
> Unfortunately, it won't help people who like to quickly add scripts or
> programs to GNUmakefile.postamble and don't have time to write proper make
> rules for them.
But that's their problem (or not; they might not care). We only need to
make sure that core GNUstep stuff conforms.
- Alexander Malmberg
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency, (continued)
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency, Helge Hess, 2002/12/11
- Re: Header cleanliness [was: removing the 'make install'-->'makeall' dependency], Alexander Malmberg, 2002/12/11
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency,
Alexander Malmberg <=
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency, Alexander Malmberg, 2002/12/16
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency, David Ayers, 2002/12/17
- Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency, Nicola Pero, 2002/12/19
- Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Chris B. Vetter, 2002/12/19
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/12/19
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Chris B. Vetter, 2002/12/19
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Nicola Pero, 2002/12/19
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Chris B. Vetter, 2002/12/19
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Nicola Pero, 2002/12/20
- Re: Problem with autogsdoc and GSFusedSilica.h, Chris B. Vetter, 2002/12/20