On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:43:53PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-10-15 8:37 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org > ><mailto:m...@glandium.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:21:44PM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote: > > > Will building in an arbitrary source directory continue to link > > libxul? It > > > was really great when we stopped needing to build in toolkit/library > > all > > > the time. > > > > The point is, that doesn't reliably happen currently. You should > > just use mach > > build binaries, which will, reliably, and even better, only if needed. > > > > > >|mach build binaries| is much slower for me than the present behavior, > >because I often hack on header files that are included all over the > >tree, but whose #include-ers generally don't need to be rebuilt all of > >the time. > > I have the exact same use case as Bobby and as such object to removing this > feature. Especially since it is unclear what we gain from removing it.
Consistency. Currently, when you do `mach build foo/bar`, you don't know what's going to happen. Some people will get toolkit/library rebuild, some won't. Or other directories. Or not. "dumbmake" also breaks `mach build foo/bar/baz` when the expected outcome is `make -C objdir/foo bar/baz` instead of `make -C objdir/foo/bar baz`. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
