Follow-up Comment #3, bug #68034 (group groff): [comment #2 comment #2:] > [comment #1 comment #1:] >> That command pair has literally decades of tradition behind it. > > And there's no reason it should stop working; it would just build out of tree > rather than in.
That suggests a change to the GNU build system more than to _groff_ itself.
Unless you think it's okay if the location of the build tree not be
predictable from "configure && make" alone.
A change to GNU build system defaults is outside my remit and above my pay
grade.
> Or are you less concerned with muscle-memoried users typing that command
> pair, than with them subsequently being baffled by not finding the resultant
> executables in the top level?
No. I generally don't even bother inspecting the top-level contents of the
build directory. 99% of the time, everything I need, I can get from "make -C
build ...", "./build/test-groff ...", by "cd"-ing into the build directory to
run one of our test scripts from the parent (such as "cd build;
../contrib/mm/tests/whatever.sh"), or I go on an archeological dig in the
build tree to find a specific test log.
> Groff is surely not the only project that has found it cleaner to build in a
> dedicated directory. A first step might be learning how projects typically
> handle this.
As far as I know, they just accept the in-source-tree build default, and
explicitly do something else if they want.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68034>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
