At 2026-02-06T07:03:55-0600, Dave Kemper wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 5:10 AM G. Branden Robinson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > weird/stupid things [...] can occur if a directory is used for an > > out-of-tree build after having been once used for an in-tree build > > I'll re-ask an unanswered question from Ingo from a couple weeks ago > (http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2026-01/msg00078.html): > > "Given that you prefer out-of-tree, that it is objectively cleaner and > better tested, why is in-tree even supported at all? Simply deleting > the code supporting in-tree and making all builds out-of-tree naively > looks like a win for everyone: less maintenance and testing effort for > you and more cleanliness and better testing for the benefit of users." > > The "weird/stupid things" cited above are a real-world example of > Ingo's point about "more cleanliness."
Fair point. I don't have an answer apart from "inertia". However, we must be mindful of how inertia manifests. If the bits of the GNU build system that we use generally presume and advertise support for in-tree builds, we could be trading one pile of grief for another by breaking that presumption, and by violating user expectations. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
