notion-devel

[Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Etan R. <de...@un...>]

system-inc.mk was added (as far as I can recall and discern from what it
does) added to support the autotool build method for ion (which was a
third-party contribution, never worked all that well, and didn't work for
very long).

As such system-inc.mk doesn't serve much useful purpose at this point (the
ac/system-ac.mk file that it references hasn't existed, or been creatable,
in ages).

I'd like to get rid of it. That measns pulling the two include lines into
every Makefile that currently includes system-inc.mk.

Attached is a patch which does that. If this seems acceptable I'll commit
and push it.

I didn't want to make a change this big without checking (the rest of the
build stuff I've done has been comparatively minor).

    -Etan

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 05:05:01 +0200, Etan Reisner <de...@un...> wrote:

> system-inc.mk was added (as far as I can recall and discern from what it
> does) added to support the autotool build method for ion (which was a
> third-party contribution, never worked all that well, and didn't work for
> very long).
>
> As such system-inc.mk doesn't serve much useful purpose at this point (the
> ac/system-ac.mk file that it references hasn't existed, or been creatable,
> in ages).

Ah.. so that's what ac stands for :)

I have used system-ac.mk to avoid constant diffs from git/darcs since I need local changes in build configuration.

Maybe there is another way to avoid that problem though? I guess git might have some sort of ignore mechanism for these kinds of things.

-- 
Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Etan R. <de...@un...>]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
> Ah.. so that's what ac stands for :)

Heh.

> I have used system-ac.mk to avoid constant diffs from git/darcs since I need local changes in build configuration.
>
> Maybe there is another way to avoid that problem though? I guess git might have some sort of ignore mechanism for these kinds of things.

Yeah, it occurred to me as I was writing my email that things like this
(and/or distributions wanting to package notion) could use system-ac.mk to
avoid needing to edit system.mk or use env vars.

But I'm not convinced that's a useful enough reason to keep it around.

I'm also open to simply having system.mk include (without failing if it
doesn't exit) a local.mk (or similar) file to allow these sort of
custom definitions.

But this is exactly the sort of thing that caused me to send an email
about this before just making the change.

    -Etan

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 13:24:29 +0200, Etan Reisner <de...@un...> wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
>> Ah.. so that's what ac stands for :)
>
> Heh.
>
>> I have used system-ac.mk to avoid constant diffs from git/darcs since I need local changes in build configuration.
>>
>> Maybe there is another way to avoid that problem though? I guess git might have some sort of ignore mechanism for these kinds of things.
>
> Yeah, it occurred to me as I was writing my email that things like this
> (and/or distributions wanting to package notion) could use system-ac.mk to
> avoid needing to edit system.mk or use env vars.
>
> But I'm not convinced that's a useful enough reason to keep it around.
>
> I'm also open to simply having system.mk include (without failing if it
> doesn't exit) a local.mk (or similar) file to allow these sort of
> custom definitions.
>
> But this is exactly the sort of thing that caused me to send an email
> about this before just making the change.
>
>     -Etan
>

Well, what do other people do with git and local modifications? 'make -f custom-makefile' ?


git has some sort of relevant mechanism: http://dancingpenguinsoflight.com/2010/02/git-tip-ignoring-modifications-to-tracked-files/

- Ole

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[<eb...@dr...>]

On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:45:19 +0200
Ole Jørgen Brønner <ole...@ya...> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011 13:24:29 +0200, Etan Reisner
> <de...@un...> wrote:
> 
> Well, what do other people do with git and local modifications? 'make
> -f custom-makefile' ?
> 
> 
> git has some sort of relevant mechanism:
> http://dancingpenguinsoflight.com/2010/02/git-tip-ignoring-modifications-to-tracked-files/
> 
> - Ole

That mechanism is good only as long as you don't want to commit some
other changes in those files. I wanted to make some "public" changes in
these files later, and after few tries I decided to do these changes in
fresh clone of the repositor instead.

-- 
                                 Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
                                 PF 2011.36627473364

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Arnout E. <no...@bz...>]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 07:24:29AM -0400, Etan Reisner wrote:
> I'm also open to simply having system.mk include (without failing if it
> doesn't exit) a local.mk (or similar) file to allow these sort of
> custom definitions.

This sounds like an elegant solution to me - any drawbacks we can think of?


Arnout

Re: [Notion-devel] Proposed patch to do away with system-inc.mk.

[Arnout E. <no...@bz...>]

It seems both system-inc.mk and system.mk were originally meant for 
'system-specific configuration'. 

Perhaps we should drop build/system-inc.mk, move system.mk to 
build/autodetect.mk(?) and include build/libs.mk, build/autodetect.mk
and local.mk (if available) directly from the Makefile?

This has gotten a bit complex, now seems like a good time to clean up and and
simplify :).


Regards,

Arnout

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 06:26:11PM +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 07:24:29AM -0400, Etan Reisner wrote:
> > I'm also open to simply having system.mk include (without failing if it
> > doesn't exit) a local.mk (or similar) file to allow these sort of
> > custom definitions.
> 
> This sounds like an elegant solution to me - any drawbacks we can think of?
> 
> 
> Arnout
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability
> What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know.
> Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools
> to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel