httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: make depend.
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:16:09 GMT

> > I have brought this up before, and it was shot down before, but I'm trying
> > again.  Is there a reason we don't have the dependancies in CVS for
> > 2.0?  Currently, as soon as we extract from CVS we have to do a make
> > depend or else the code doesn't understand any dependancies.
>     That is also the case with other large projects, like
>     XFree86, the Linux kernel and OpenLDAP (just to name a few). 

Does FreeBSD do it this way?  I don't think it does. but I could be

>     The advantages of this method are:
>     -   users who compile once don't need dependencies anyway

This is a fallacy.  If somebody applies even one patch, they need the
dependancies.  Ever notice that the first thing the Linux Kernel tells you
to do before you build is run make depend?  This is because if you change
anything in the code, the dependancies are necessary.

>     -   avoids maintenance overhead

I don't think it is a high overhead.  Once in a while, run make depend;cvs
commit on a new tree.  We could automate that if we really needed
to.  This was never an issue for 1.3

>     -   allows clean/separate storage of dependencies in the
>         build directory

Why can't we leave the dependencies in the build directory and have them
committed to CVS.  Where we store the dependencies should have nothing to
do with wether they are in CVS or not.

>     Cons:
>     -   developers need to run 'make depend' once

      -   It gives users a false sense of security when compiling
code.  Code can be changed and not re-compiled.

I disagree with many of your advantages to this style.


Ryan Bloom               
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message