[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Feature Request: all-hook

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Feature Request: all-hook
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:23:16 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

Hello Luiji,

* Luiji Maryo wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:51:35AM CEST:
> Could you please implement an all-hook?  Currently, I have UPX
> compress the executable after installation, however I find it would be
> much more useful if it were compressed after compilation.  Is there a
> reason there is no all-hook?  Is there an alternative way to do this
> (such as some sort of compile-hook)?

We could add all-hook if someone can demonstrate that it would be
useful.  I don't completely understand your request, but you could
probably either use an all-local rule that simply depends upon
$(bin_PROGRAMS) (or similar) so that it is run after they have been
updated.  Alternatively, if you are going to modify programs in place,
then the only way to sanely do that would be to overwrite the automake-
generated link rule.

Rationale is the following: if your compression modifies the programs
in place, then a 'make -j check' might try to access half-modified
programs while running tests already, or other rules depending on your
programs might access them.  Remember that you shouldn't cheat 'make'
by modifying files outside of their rules, if you can help it.


reply via email to

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