[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Automake-NG] Removal of INCLUDES in favour of AM_CPPFLAGS

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Automake-NG] Removal of INCLUDES in favour of AM_CPPFLAGS
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:15:40 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2

On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> And in fact, I just expressed how I think removing support for
> INCLUDES is wrong, for *both* projects!

I agree that removing it from automake is counterproductive.  But I
support removing it from Automake-NG - as long as we are moving to a
newer environment, we can afford to modernize and get rid of namespace

> but supporting INCLUDES will never hinder progress (I
> fail to see how anyway).

Namespace cleanliness in Automake-NG is a nice goal, one where it is
worth warning about (but not removing) use of INCLUDES in Automake in
order to make it easier to switch to Automake-NG.  It may turn out that
in Automake-NG, supporting INCLUDES costs a lot more clutter than
desirable.  Remember, in Automake-NG, we use GNU make features, such as
the ability to easily iterate over all targets that match a certain glob
pattern - but this only works if a pattern is easy to write.  It is easy
to glob for all things beginning with AM_, but harder if you have to
special-case for outliers like INCLUDES.

> To me, the change was made just because
> it was perceived as messy or redundant. But the messiest part
> of the removed code was the deprecation warning. Carrying on
> with the support for INCLUDES in automake costs nearly nothing.

I agree that _in automake_, carrying support for INCLUDES costs almost
nothing, since we already have code to detect INCLUDES, and since we
already have to issue warnings about using INCLUDES.

> Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.

This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to concede; so while I
agree with the decision to deprecate (but not remove) INCLUDES from
automake, I think it is fair game to state that someone switching to
Automake-NG should be prepared to avoid INCLUDES, as part of that switch.

> All in my humble opinion, of source. Errm, of course.

Same goes for me :)

> Cheers,
> Peter
> PS. Keep up the good work.

Likewise, I applaud your efforts on both automake and Automake-NG, and
hope that we can get automake stable enough that you can spend some fun
time with Automake-NG.

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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