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.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I started a thread with the same subject almost two years ago. The > motivation hasn't changed, but the context surely has, so it's probably > time to reconsider. > > As a reminder, "dumbmake" is the feature that makes "mach build foo/bar" > sometimes rebuild in some other directories as well. For example, "mach > build gfx" will build gfx, as well as toolkit/library. > > OTOH, it is pretty limited, and, for instance, "mach build gfx/2d" will > only build gfx/2d. > > There are however now two build targets that can do the right thing for > most use cases: > - mach build binaries, which will build C/C++ related things > appropriately > - mach build faster, which will build JS, XUL, CSS, etc. (iow, non > C/C++) (although it skips what doesn't end up in dist/bin) > > At this point, I think "dumbmake" is more harmful than helpful, and the > above two targets should be used instead. Removing "dumbmake" would mean > that "mach build foo/bar" would still work, but would stop to "magically" > do something else than what was requested (or fail to do that thing for > all the cases it doesn't know about). > > Are there still objections to go forward, within the new context? > > Cheers, > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
