Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 22:07:06 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DEPEND and/or NO_DEPEND broken Message-ID: <4446.840949626@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:57:15 %2B1000." <199608250357.NAA19669@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> bsd.prog.mk and bsd.prog.mk now have ${DEPEND} in the dependencies for
> the `all' target, but ${DEPEND} is usually null at this point.
Hmmmm. You're right, though I'm perplexed that I didn't catch this
during my testing of NO_DEPEND. In any case...
> The caching effect of making dependencies at the "same" time as objects
> could be obtained by changing (simplifying) the SUBDIR processing to
> pass all targets to the sub-makes. (Run `make -n depend all install' in
OK.
> overlooked, but good enough in most cases. The SUBDIR processing could
> even be changed to special- case the `depend' target so that `make
> depend all' is split into `make depend; make all' for subdirectories.
Ugh.
> wouldn't work in general (in particular, in leaf directories). The
> SUBDIR processing might need to special-case only the `depend' target so
> that the other targets don't get messed up. OTOH, `make all install'
> would probably benefit from it too. E.g., libraries would be installed
> earlier so programs would be linked to up to date versions of the
> libraries.
Hmmm. I think this is one of those things that's far easier to
demonstrate than explain, since I'm still not entirely sure that what
I'm inferring from the above is what you actually mean. Would you
perhaps have some diffs which explain this in a more practical
fashion? :-)
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4446.840949626>