httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: dependencies
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:35:18 GMT
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 05:15:54PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2001 17:16, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > 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.

"apparent" ... that was just my interpretation of what came out of those
discussions. As you say, some did want them, some didn't. And that's what I
said in my two points below :-)

IOW, "developers appeared to have consensus in that people worked
differently and desired different things, and to address this discrepancy,
we should have a system that worked for boths types of developers"

> > 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.

Of course not. Those points were my summarization of the events that led to
the current system. We never wrote them down, voted on them, and held them
up as This Is The Way Things Will Be. :-)

> The only argument I have
> ever seen around not having dependancies in CVS, is that we shouldn't
> have generated information stored in CVS.

Agreed, and I believe almost everbody would agree, too.

The *real* question is whether buildconf or configure should figure out
dependencies or not. configure is probably a Bad Thing because there isn't
much reason for end-users to have the dependencies recomputed every time
they run the darn thing. buildconf is really the place to do it. *If* we
want to impose dependency generation and use on all developers.

That last sentence is the cruz :-)


Greg Stein,

View raw message