Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:26:26 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: dependencies
Message-ID: <20010827022626.C2305@waka.ebuilt.net>
References: <20010826051509.40773.qmail@icarus.apache.org>
 <Pine.BSF.4.20.0108261102080.8992-100000@alive.znep.com>
 <20010826171650.C3499@lyra.org> <0108261715540C.23573@koj.rkbloom.net>
 <20010827013518.C4184@lyra.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010827013518.C4184@lyra.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
Status: O

> 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 would only work if it is sufficient to include only the non-os-specific
dependencies, since buildconf is run pre-tarball.  The worst thing we could
do is propagate OS or configuration-specific dependencies.

Personally, I'd rather we just add and maintain the relevant dependencies
manually within the Makefile.in files, with only the config-dependent
dependencies appended by configure.  And never run make depend again.

....Roy