headers
Simon Josefsson | 20 Jun 2012 19:18
Favicon
Gravatar

gnumakefile: usable on its own without maintainer-makefile?

Building the 'gnumakefile' module fails:

http://autobuild.josefsson.org/gnulib-mega/log-201206201113065857000.txt

Looking at that module, I wonder if that module is useful at all without
maintainer-makefile?  It seems GNUmakefile is tightly coupled together
with maint.mk.  Should GNUmakefile be moved into the maintainer-makefile
module, and the gnumakefile module be removed?

/Simon
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jim Meyering | 20 Jun 2012 19:33
Gravatar

Re: gnumakefile: usable on its own without maintainer-makefile?

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Building the 'gnumakefile' module fails:
>
> http://autobuild.josefsson.org/gnulib-mega/log-201206201113065857000.txt
>
> Looking at that module, I wonder if that module is useful at all without
> maintainer-makefile?  It seems GNUmakefile is tightly coupled together
> with maint.mk.  Should GNUmakefile be moved into the maintainer-makefile
> module, and the gnumakefile module be removed?

Hi Simon,

Thanks for noticing.  That sounds like a good plan.
Do you feel like doing that and deprecating the gnumakefile module?
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 21 Jun 2012 05:13
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: gnumakefile: usable on its own without maintainer-makefile?

Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Building the 'gnumakefile' module fails:
>>
>> http://autobuild.josefsson.org/gnulib-mega/log-201206201113065857000.txt
>>
>> Looking at that module, I wonder if that module is useful at all without
>> maintainer-makefile?  It seems GNUmakefile is tightly coupled together
>> with maint.mk.  Should GNUmakefile be moved into the maintainer-makefile
>> module, and the gnumakefile module be removed?
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thanks for noticing.  That sounds like a good plan.
> Do you feel like doing that and deprecating the gnumakefile module?

Here is a patch to implement that.  I haven't pushed it.  What do you
think, should this or Eric's approach go in?  I don't care strongly,
assuming Eric's patch solves my problem.  If we keep two modules, some
documentation on what is appropriate to put in GNUmakefile and what to
put in maint.mk would be useful.  That line isn't clear to me now.

/Simon

From 5406a811e1fa842b3b1dc75994e8e30aa4f63601 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Josefsson <simon <at> josefsson.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:08:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gnumakefile: Remove module. Use maintainer-makefile instead.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jim Meyering | 21 Jun 2012 09:27
Gravatar

Re: gnumakefile: usable on its own without maintainer-makefile?

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net> writes:
>> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Building the 'gnumakefile' module fails:
>>>
>>> http://autobuild.josefsson.org/gnulib-mega/log-201206201113065857000.txt
>>>
>>> Looking at that module, I wonder if that module is useful at all without
>>> maintainer-makefile?  It seems GNUmakefile is tightly coupled together
>>> with maint.mk.  Should GNUmakefile be moved into the maintainer-makefile
>>> module, and the gnumakefile module be removed?
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks for noticing.  That sounds like a good plan.
>> Do you feel like doing that and deprecating the gnumakefile module?
>
> Here is a patch to implement that.  I haven't pushed it.  What do you
> think, should this or Eric's approach go in?  I don't care strongly,
> assuming Eric's patch solves my problem.  If we keep two modules, some
> documentation on what is appropriate to put in GNUmakefile and what to
> put in maint.mk would be useful.  That line isn't clear to me now.

Hi Simon,

I prefer your simplification/consolidation.
Currently, no one can use GNUmakefile without also using the
maintainer-makefile module.  Initially, I deliberately made the
inclusion of maint.mk a hard requirement to ensure that I never forgot
that module/file.  Merging the modules seems even better.  maint.mk feels
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Eric Blake | 20 Jun 2012 19:43
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

[PATCH] gnumakefile: work without maintainer-makefile

With gnumakefile being an independent module from maintainer-makefile,
we shouldn't have a hard requirement on maint.mk.

* top/GNUmakefile: Let maint.mk be optional.
Reported by Simon Josefsson.

Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
---

This is an alternative to merging the 'gnumakefile' and
'maintainer-makefile' modules.  I'm posting it more as a
demonstration that it is possible, because I personally like
the idea of the module merge.

 ChangeLog       |    6 ++++++
 top/GNUmakefile |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 9820d7c..c8983bc 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
 <at>  <at>  -1,3 +1,9  <at>  <at> 
+2012-06-20  Eric Blake  <eblake <at> redhat.com>
+
+	gnumakefile: work without maintainer-makefile
+	* top/GNUmakefile: Let maint.mk be optional.
+	Reported by Simon Josefsson.
+
 2012-05-29  Paul Eggert  <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 21 Jun 2012 05:05
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [PATCH] gnumakefile: work without maintainer-makefile

Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com> writes:

> With gnumakefile being an independent module from maintainer-makefile,
> we shouldn't have a hard requirement on maint.mk.
...
> This is an alternative to merging the 'gnumakefile' and
> 'maintainer-makefile' modules.  I'm posting it more as a
> demonstration that it is possible, because I personally like
> the idea of the module merge.

I noticed this old thread about the initial split between gnumakefile
and maintainer-makefile:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.coreutils.bugs/12942/focus=12951

however, re-reading that I don't find any rationale for actually
splitting the modules into two, although I could have missed it.

/Simon
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane