[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recursive targets for the user

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Recursive targets for the user
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 07:28:10 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

Hello Stefano,

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:46:58AM CEST:
> What I'd like to do is to allow the developers to extend the nonrecursive
> part of any recursive `foo' rule (be it user-defined or automake-defined)
> with a simple:
>   foo-local: foo-extra-deps
> *without causing automake to tweak the generated or to take
> different codepaths*.

This is a valid feature request, but orthogonal to the feature request
we have discussed so far.  Can we also keep its discussion and its
eventual addition separate, for both user-defined and automake-defined
recursive targets, please?

I don't yet see much chance for regression yet, but the feature does
violate the "given, let be as simple as
possible" development guide line.  It would not be easy to draw a
consistent line: what about *-hook extensions defined only in
GNUmakefile?  What about things like BUILT_SOURCES?  Either of those
would trigger extra forks, maybe even extra make recursions with
associated undesirable slowdown effects.  Then what about special
variables like bin_PROGRAMS?  If we don't have any _PROGRAMS in (or included files), then we completely avoid the
compilation machinery; OTOH, it only needs a
  noinst_PROGRAMS =

line to enable it, just as it only needs a

line to enable the -local hook for all (and such a line can easily be
script-added to files in need).  IOW, the current behavior
is very consistent, while your proposed extension is less consistent.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]