Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Dec 1995 09:42:20 +0100 (MET)
From:      grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
To:        ache@astral.msk.su (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=)
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject:   Re: Minor change to make
Message-ID:  <199512030909.KAA15634@allegro.lemis.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pa0FDmmer7@ache.dialup.ru> from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" at Dec 3, 95 01:31:28 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= writes:
> 
>>> In message <199512021742.RAA14346@exalt.x.org> Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
>>> writes:
>>> 
>>> >I want make to silently ignore a failure to find a .include file. The 
>>> >reason I want this is because in the next release of X imake will generate
>>> >Makefiles that can use include files for dependencies if the system's make 
>>> >supports it.
>>> 
>>> >+ #if WANT_FATAL_INCLUDE_FAILURE
>>> >        Parse_Error (PARSE_FATAL, "Could not find %s", file);
>>> >+ #endif
>>> 
>>> Why not simple change PARSE_FATAL to PARSE_WARNING?
>>> I.e. this diagnostic prints (to help detect wrong includes),
>>> but it will be non-fatal.
> 
>> Humbug. I don't want a build log filled with (more) nonsense warnings; 
>> I've already got enough of those as it is. 
> 
>> It could emit a warning if make is run with "-d i" or something. Would
>> that make everyone happy?
> 
> Default case must produce diagnostic. Our system
> Makefiles very depends on .included parts and can acts undetectable
> different when some parts are missing by typing error f.e.
> 
> I have nothing against adding commandline option to _disable_ error
> or .sinclude as you originally suggest or something like
> .IGNORE_INCLUDES:
> target (I prefer this solution).

I think this is probably the best solution: retain the single .include
directive, let it die if the file isn't found, *unless* a '-d i'
option or a '.ACCEPT_MISSING_INCLUDES (or whatever) target is supplied
(sorry, Andrey, I think the name .IGNORE_INCLUDES is ambiguous).  That
way the default doesn't change, but the functionality can be enabled
at will.

Greg





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512030909.KAA15634>