stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: makefile patch
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:29:39 GMT
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Could you please take a look at this patch and let me know if it meets
> your approval?

Will do.

But first a few things about the process :)

1. The subject line of a patch should start with the string [PATCH]
to make it easily distinguishable from other posts.

2. If you expect me (or others) to try the patch out and give you
comments it must be possible to apply it using the patch utility.
In this case you it helps to also describe what the patch does
and why.

3. If you expect someone else to apply the patch you also need to
submit a ChangeLog entry in the usual format describing the change.
If the patch fixes a bug you need make sure to include a reference
to the bug key. This patch fixes STDCXX-85, correct?
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-85

See also: http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/bugs.html#patches

> 
> I have removed the all target, replaced it with a lib, which being first
> in the makefile is picked when building w/ no goals and configures and
> builds the library (no examples and/or tests which I believe it was the
> intention).

That looks okay. I'm just not too excited about the duplication
if the code between lib and .DEFAULT. Is there an easy way to
avoid it?

> 
> I removed the useless builddir target in TOPDIR.

I guess that's okay, too, except that we will now also need to remove
the comment explaining builddir. I'm not sure why it was even there if
it didn't do anything. How does BUILDDIR get created now? By including
makefile.in?

> 
> I added comments.

Those ate always good! :)

> 
> I added dependencies in the BUILDDIR invocations of make (else branch).

I think we had those at some point in the past. IIRC, I took them out
because I thought it was cleaner to have them in the individual (sub)
makefiles instead. I.e., the top level makefile shouldn't need to know
all the dependencies of each subcomponent. It easy to miss some (such
as the dependency of tests on rwtest).

Martin

Mime
View raw message