Re: make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue)
Date
Msg-id 9622.971975878@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: make depend (Re: Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variables issue)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Just a sanity check:  Does anyone use `make depend'?  Does everyone know
> about the better way to track dependencies?  Does every-/anyone know why
> `make depend' is worse?  I just don't want to bother fixing something
> that's dead anyway...
> (helpful reading: http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/autodep.html)

Well, you'll still have to touch every makefile :-( --- but I see no
good reason not to remove "make depend" if we have support for a better
solution.  Comments anyone?

One thought here: "make depend" has the advantage of being
non-intrusive, in the sense that you're not forced to use it and if
you don't use it it doesn't cost you anything.  In particular,
non-developer types probably just want to build from scratch when they
get a new distribution --- they don't want to expend cycles on making
useless (for them) dependency files, and they most certainly don't want
to be forced to use gcc, nor to install a makedepend tool.  I trust what
you have in mind doesn't make life worse for people who don't need
dependency tracking.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: [ANNC][RFC] crypto hashes for PostgreSQL 7.0, 7.1
Next
From: Karel Zak
Date:
Subject: Re: [ANNC][RFC] crypto hashes for PostgreSQL 7.0, 7.1