octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: configure update warning


From: Jaroslav Hajek
Subject: Re: configure update warning
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:12:07 +0200

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 18-Jun-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > On 18-Jun-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> | >
> | > | hello,
> | > |
> | > | please consider this simple patch that makes the configure script emit
> | > | a warning if it detects that it is older than
> | > | configure.in.
> | >
> | > The -nt operator for the test utility is not specified by POSIX, so
> | > this patch would introduce a potential portability problem.
> | >
> | > jwe
> | >
> |
> | Is there an alternative? I think that having this check would spare
> | people some trouble.
>
> Why not add rules to the octMakefile.in file to update the configure
> script, config.h.in as needed if the prerequesites change?
>

I'm not objecting. But how will that work? Once you run "make", is it
possible to
re-launch configure that updates the makefile being processed? Won't
that screw up the make process? Perhaps I don't understand precisely
what you mean.

> I think in the past the argument against doing this was that it could
> be annoying to have make do this automatically in cases when it is
> known that running configure again is not really necessary (for
> example, for a change to the configure script that doesn't affect the
> current platform, or that was just in the comments, etc.) because
> running configure will cause most of Octave to be rebuilt, and that
> can take a long time.  But we frequently get questions about builds
> failing because people forget to run autogen.sh after updating their
> sources.  So maybe it would be better to have the rules in the
> Makefile.
>

That was exactly my motivation. Is someone ignores warnings, he
deserves what he gets. But if your approach will work, it will suit me
as well.

> If rules are added, I would prefer to have rules that list precise
> dependencies and update only what is needed rather than using
> autogen.sh to rebuild the configure script and associated files.
>
> jwe
>

regards

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz


reply via email to

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