On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:46:14 +0200
Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I made tiny "build system" (inspired by kconfig) for smaller
> projects I work on:
Me too! :)
http://onion.dynserv.net/~timo/index.php?page=Projects/build
It also has configuration system written in bash.
--
htt
Dear diary, on Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 09:31:34AM CEST, I got a letter
where Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > > While I do not have strong objections to make the build process
> > > go faster, it is somewhat disturbing that the Makefile pieces
> > > maintained in subdirectories nee
> > While I do not have strong objections to make the build process
> > go faster, it is somewhat disturbing that the Makefile pieces
> > maintained in subdirectories need to name things they touch
> > using paths that include the subdirectory names. I do not have
> > a better alternative to sugge
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:50:55PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 003afd3ed1f83b4533b628182fa16c9ab0dc0467
> > diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile.inc b/Documentation/Makefile.inc
> > new file mode 100644
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/Mak
Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
While I agree gitk should not come as part of git package, this
brings up a different issue.
Ideally, I'd want to see gitk packaged from its repository
kernel.org:/pub/scm/gitk/git.git/ Paul Mackerras maintains, not
from GIT one which _will_ lag behind.
...
While I
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I *would* segregate gitk into its own Debian package, because
> it requires wish et al., which would pull a large chunk of X11 stuff,
> which people may not want on their server.
While I agree gitk should not come as part of git package, thi
Hi, Petr Baudis wrote:
> having all the targets for all the subdirectories in a
> single file sounds nightmarish
which is why you'd include Makefile[.inc] snippets from subdirectories
instead.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was
Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:07:07AM CEST, I got a letter
where A Large Angry SCM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >While I do not have strong objections to make the build process
> >go faster, it is somewhat disturbing that the Makefile pieces
> >maintained i
Hi, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The Debian build is not affected because it does not produce
> separate git-core and doc-git-core packages[*1*]; probably this
> was the reason you did not notice this.
git-core-doc, actually.
Debian does that only if the documentation is substantial. Even then,
manpa
Ryan, I am dropping this patch, at least for now, after keeping
it in the "pu" (proposed updates) branch and using it myself.
There are two complaints from me.
I am used to "make bin=$HOME/bin/i386 install install-tools",
which the patch breaks (I do not want to build docs for myself).
This is min
Junio C Hamano wrote:
While I do not have strong objections to make the build process
go faster, it is somewhat disturbing that the Makefile pieces
maintained in subdirectories need to name things they touch
using paths that include the subdirectory names. I do not have
a better alternative to s
Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 003afd3ed1f83b4533b628182fa16c9ab0dc0467
> diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile.inc b/Documentation/Makefile.inc
> new file mode 100644
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/Makefile.inc
> @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
> +MAN1_TXT=$(wildcard Documentation/git-*.txt)
>
Kirby C. Bohling wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:25:10AM -0400, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
Ryan Anderson wrote:
Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
Please explain the rational for this.
I'm new to the list, but given the subject, I'm fairly confident
it's this.
http://
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:25:10AM -0400, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
> Ryan Anderson wrote:
> >Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
> >
>
> Please explain the rational for this.
I'm new to the list, but given the subject, I'm fairly confident
it's this.
http://www.canb.auug.org
Ryan Anderson wrote:
Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
Please explain the rational for this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
The old Makefiles in Documentation/ and tools/ still exist until we feel
confident that I didn't miss anything on this conversion.
Most of this patch is fixing up the main Makefile to avoid overlapping
target names.
Signed-off-by: Ryan And
16 matches
Mail list logo
