pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: pcp updates
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:21:48 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1206489988.29868.364.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1206487246.29868.357.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18409.36113.282730.586306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1206488515.29868.360.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18409.37370.928974.771025@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1206489988.29868.364.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:06:27 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:

 nscott> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:59 +1100, Max Matveev wrote:
 >> 
 nscott> Most users expect to be able to do what James did - type:
 nscott> ./configure --prefix=xxx && make
 >> 
 nscott> That basic function does not work in the PCP build atm,
 nscott> and the only sensible way I see to fix it, while keeping
 nscott> the automatic ./configure via make, is the above change.
 >> But it's the wrong change because it creates extra crap which is not
 >> needed except as a crutch to crippled make.

 nscott> By "wrong" you mean "suboptimal" or "not ideal"?
I mean it goes against the original intention of a person who added
config.done (and it was makc if you're worndering). Kind of morally wrong,
not legally or technically wrong.

 >> think is dangerous) then pick a real file it creates and change

 nscott> Why is it dangerous?  Is it less dangerous than installing
 nscott> to /usr when user requests /usr/local?
It's dangerous because it could mean that a stale configure data can
be picked up in the production build thus making builds less
reproducible.

 >> Makefile rules to depend on this file instead of config.done.

 nscott> Yeah, thats another option.  I guess any of the AC_OUTPUT
 nscott> files (or all?) would do.
Yeap.

max

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>