Re: dependencies (was: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_mmn.h)

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>]

On Sunday 26 August 2001 17:16, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2001 wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> > > wrowe       01/08/25 22:15:09
> > >
> > >   Modified:    include  ap_mmn.h
> > >   Log:
> > >     That last round calls for a bump.
> > >
> > >     bump.
> > >
> > >   Revision  Changes    Path
> > >   1.19      +2 -1      httpd-2.0/include/ap_mmn.h
> >
> > In 1.3, dependencies were generated periodically and then included in the
> > makefiles... in 2.0, you have no dependencies unless you manually run
> > "make depend" is the checked out tree... is it practical to have that
> > automatically done somewhere?  (buildconf?)
>
> The (apparent) consensus around dependencies focused around two points:

I don't believe there was ever consensus around this.  I believe half the developers
wanted to see dependancies in the tree, and the other half didn't.

> 1) some developers may/may not want them, so we should accomodate that [by
>    not forcing dependency generation]
>
> 2) end users do not require dependencies since they simply unpack and
>    compile the server.
>
>
> Given the above two points, a developer (or a user!) that wants
> dependencies can do a "make depend". Leaving it out of buildconf and
> configure means that the others users are also satisfied.

I have also never seen those two points before.  The only argument I have
ever seen around not having dependancies in CVS, is that we shouldn't
have generated information stored in CVS.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Re: dependencies

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>]

> The *real* question is whether buildconf or configure should figure out
> dependencies or not. configure is probably a Bad Thing because there isn't
> much reason for end-users to have the dependencies recomputed every time
> they run the darn thing. buildconf is really the place to do it. *If* we
> want to impose dependency generation and use on all developers.

That would only work if it is sufficient to include only the non-os-specific
dependencies, since buildconf is run pre-tarball.  The worst thing we could
do is propagate OS or configuration-specific dependencies.

Personally, I'd rather we just add and maintain the relevant dependencies
manually within the Makefile.in files, with only the config-dependent
dependencies appended by configure.  And never run make depend again.

....Roy

Re: dependencies

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 05:15:54PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2001 17:16, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
>...
> > > In 1.3, dependencies were generated periodically and then included in the
> > > makefiles... in 2.0, you have no dependencies unless you manually run
> > > "make depend" is the checked out tree... is it practical to have that
> > > automatically done somewhere?  (buildconf?)
> >
> > The (apparent) consensus around dependencies focused around two points:
> 
> I don't believe there was ever consensus around this.  I believe half the developers
> wanted to see dependancies in the tree, and the other half didn't.

"apparent" ... that was just my interpretation of what came out of those
discussions. As you say, some did want them, some didn't. And that's what I
said in my two points below :-)

IOW, "developers appeared to have consensus in that people worked
differently and desired different things, and to address this discrepancy,
we should have a system that worked for boths types of developers"

> > 1) some developers may/may not want them, so we should accomodate that [by
> >    not forcing dependency generation]
> >
> > 2) end users do not require dependencies since they simply unpack and
> >    compile the server.
> >
> > Given the above two points, a developer (or a user!) that wants
> > dependencies can do a "make depend". Leaving it out of buildconf and
> > configure means that the others users are also satisfied.
> 
> I have also never seen those two points before.

Of course not. Those points were my summarization of the events that led to
the current system. We never wrote them down, voted on them, and held them
up as This Is The Way Things Will Be. :-)

> The only argument I have
> ever seen around not having dependancies in CVS, is that we shouldn't
> have generated information stored in CVS.

Agreed, and I believe almost everbody would agree, too.

The *real* question is whether buildconf or configure should figure out
dependencies or not. configure is probably a Bad Thing because there isn't
much reason for end-users to have the dependencies recomputed every time
they run the darn thing. buildconf is really the place to do it. *If* we
want to impose dependency generation and use on all developers.

That last sentence is the cruz :-)

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/