[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [FEATURE Request] Please add an option to list all dependenciesofa t

From: Noel Yap
Subject: Re: [FEATURE Request] Please add an option to list all dependenciesofa target (recursively)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:25:08 -0400

Martin Quinson wrote:
> Others, I did report this to the debian BTS and not here directly to benefit
> of its sorted archiving mechanism. If you want more context, please check
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=206746

I agree with Manoj that watching a file system should not be make's job.

> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:14:50PM -0400, Noel Yap wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > >  If we found a security hole in a structure or function: how
> > > many projects would be impacted? All these are what if scenarios).
> > >
> > >         In any case, is this really necessary? Should every feature
> > >  requester have to rigorously defend the need for a well defined,
> > >  distinct feature?
> >
> > No, and yes.
> >
> > This is open source.  You're welcome to make the changes yourself without
> > asking for approval or justifying it.
> You're quite rude and unfair to Manoj. As debian maintainer of make he
> certainly contributed more to make than me. I dunno about you, though...

I'm not quite sure how this thread got like this since, from the URL you 
provided, it sounded like Manoj himself quoted the "bloat" issue of open 
source.  In any case, I apologize if I unintentionally came across as rude.

> > OTOH, every added feature leads to more complex software.  More complex
> > software leads to security holes and other problems.
> Bullshit. Missing features lead to hackism around the project, leading to
> dupplicated complicated scripts.

This would only happen if many others shared the request for the same feature.  
AFAICT, there's only been one such request.

I haven't tried all the combinations, but have you tried "gmake -Bnt" and 
parsing the output?

> Let me explain why I asked for this feature first. I want to get my latex
> document automatically recompiled when I save parts of it. I have a rather
> complicated makefile (not relevant here, I guess), which parse the .tex
> files, looking for dependencies and able to reexport .eps files when .fig
> files changed, and all such features you can dream about.

Can your editor be configured to launch make each time you save a .tex file?


> That's rather anoying to have to rebuild in such a complicated manner an
> information that make obviously have. That's why I was asking for it.

I'm starting to see your point.  But I'm still not convinced that make should 
format the output for you.

For example, make already publishes the information you need (via "make 
-npqr").  I think a general-purpose tool, included with the make project, to 
parse this information is a good idea that should satisfy everyone's needs.

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does 
not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

reply via email to

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