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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
