Re: [PATCH v4 for-5.0] configure: warn if not using a separate build directory

[Aleksandar Markovic]

11:14 Sub, 04.04.2020. Peter Maydell <address@hidden> је написао/ла:
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 23:35, Aleksandar Markovic
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > But, Eric, while, to some extent I understand your motivation and the idea, there are still features working in in-tree builds only (some coccinele scenarios, and some gcov-related scenarios - and perhaps others that nobody seems to care to try to find out at all), and not in out-of tree builds. And, now, if I understand well your proposal, and supposing that I use gcov in-tree build (since I have to), this will stop me from doing out-of-tree builds in this QEMU directory, since my in-tree gcov build will be destroyed.
>
> To repeat from the last thread: we are *not going* to remove in-tree
> builds before we fix whatever we need to to allow people to
> use out-of-tree for whatever they are currently doing with in-tree
> builds.

I am with you, Peter, and I truly appreciate your repeating that for the second time.

But, what made me upset, obviously not everybody is reading your statements. If you really carefully read responses to the original thread started by you and also subsequent threads, you'll see that a number of suggestions either cripple or outrightly effectively remove in-tree builds! And all that not in 4 months, not in 8 months, but now, in the same patch that was discussed (maybe the authors meant "later", but certainly did not write that).

(on closer examination, perhaps Eric's proposal does not belong to this catehory, so my apologies to Eric)

> The reason for putting in deprecation warnings etc now
> is timescales: releases are every four months or so, so if we
> want to warn users about something we need to put in that warning
> well in advance. Bug fixes on the other hand can go into the tree
> very quickly, so we can without any problems have a timeline that
> goes deprecation-notice --- fix bugs with out-of-tree builds -- remove
> or convert in-tree builds to automatically out-of-tree.
>
> Plus the only way we find out about problems we're going to need
> to fix is if we tell people "in-tree is going away" and they then tell
> us "er, XYZ doesn't seem to work out-of-tree".
>

Understood.

> The reason people are currently focusing on the warning bit
> is that we have about one week to do that if we want to get
> it into this release. After that we have months to investigate
> and fix the problems with out-of-tree builds.
>
> Can you provide repro instructions for your gcov issue?
>

I unfortunately can't, because I am working from home, and having difficulties accessing my dev system with said behavior, that I left at the company. If and when these difficulties disappear, I will gladly and certainly send a bug report.

> What is the "coccinelle scenario" you mention?
>

I meant to say the scenario you mention in your original thread on the same topic from the other day, and perhaps you said "Coverity", and not "coccinele" - and I mixed up the two.

So, in other words, nothing new, I was just echoing what you said before, the other day, in a response to one of my messages.

Regards,
Aleksandar

> thanks
> -- PMM