Subject: RE: makefile(.abi) vs. autoconf/automake/libtool/etc.
From: WJCarpenter (bill-abisource@carpenter.ORG)
Date: Thu Feb 15 2001 - 16:22:09 CST
paul> 4. dependencies
paul (weakness) Doesn't attempt to track dependencies.
Couldn't the dependency information be added to the current makefiles?
I grant that that's a lot of clerical work (which could perhaps be
mitigated by the combination of some Unix toolwork and an energetic
person).
Manual tracking of dependencies can be error prone, but stumbling on
such a makefile dependency error tends to follow this path:
1. Waste some time until you realize it's a dependency error.
2. Make everything fresh to get immediately unblocked (ie, today's
solution).
3. Fix the dependency problem you just discovered.
Before there was autoconfig, there were lots of projects that had a
target called "depend". It's been so long that I forget how that
worked, but if you ran "make depend" it did some kind of static code
analysis to figure out the include file dependencies and wrote those
onto the bottom of the makefile. (For all I know, the static code
analysis might just have been some heuristic awk and sed stuff.) Even
if that only worked on Unix, the dependency graph stuff could be done
nightly or whatever and commited to CVS to look like a static
makefile.
-- bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 16:21:17 CST