httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: dependencies (was: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_mmn.h)
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:15:54 GMT
On Sunday 26 August 2001 17:16, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2001 wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> > > wrowe       01/08/25 22:15:09
> > >
> > >   Modified:    include  ap_mmn.h
> > >   Log:
> > >     That last round calls for a bump.
> > >
> > >     bump.
> > >
> > >   Revision  Changes    Path
> > >   1.19      +2 -1      httpd-2.0/include/ap_mmn.h
> >
> > In 1.3, dependencies were generated periodically and then included in the
> > makefiles... in 2.0, you have no dependencies unless you manually run
> > "make depend" is the checked out tree... is it practical to have that
> > automatically done somewhere?  (buildconf?)
>
> The (apparent) consensus around dependencies focused around two points:

I don't believe there was ever consensus around this.  I believe half the developers
wanted to see dependancies in the tree, and the other half didn't.

> 1) some developers may/may not want them, so we should accomodate that [by
>    not forcing dependency generation]
>
> 2) end users do not require dependencies since they simply unpack and
>    compile the server.
>
>
> Given the above two points, a developer (or a user!) that wants
> dependencies can do a "make depend". Leaving it out of buildconf and
> configure means that the others users are also satisfied.

I have also never seen those two points before.  The only argument I have
ever seen around not having dependancies in CVS, is that we shouldn't
have generated information stored in CVS.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message