sd
On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a >> proposal for a central Makefile located in main. >> > Hi Jan, > > it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. > But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system > works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. > First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed before implemented, hence the wiki page. Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system, its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system. I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have. > > Some remarks regarding the missing options: > > --from <module> > This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently > (also in the form --all:<module>). > Note that if you are in <moduleA> and call 'make --from <moduleB>' then > all modules are built > a) which <moduleA> depends on > b) but not those that <moduleB> depends on > c) Both <moduleA> and <moduleB> are built. > I have changed the documentation. I use the --all:<module> myself very often, and have changed the documentation, because it is of course supported. The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail that can be easily corrected (have <module>/Makefile calling main/Makefile. I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments. > --prepare > Also one option that is important for our every day work. Use case: > You make changes in <module> and are not sure if these changes are > compatible/incompatible. To be on the safe side you discard the output of > all depending modules. To save time you keep the output of all other > modules. > > Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to > prepare a build after making changes in svx. > Documentation changed, funny thing is that svx does not clear correctly on my ubuntu build. > > --since <module> > A variant of '--from'. The only difference is that <module> itself is > not built. > > If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it > is not too difficult to support --from/--since. I made some experiments in > this direction but was to lazy to finish them. > My approach is very similar, but I failed to see how --since is supported. And question is if its real important. > > --job > --pre_job > --post_job > These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules. > I have added them, they are by the way a good example why we need a discussion I have never used them. However maybe the real discussion is "do we want to replace build and have a main/Makefile instead?" > > - I have not used the rest of the unsupported options and would not miss > them. Others may have other sets of options that are important to them. > > > Some general remarks: > > - Why keep one makefile per module? Why not put all the inter-module > dependencies into one file (like my script does)? > Ups, I did not explain that correctly, I propose 1 Makefile "main/Makefile" with all inter-module and 1 Makefile "<module>/Makefile" that today just will call the old makefiles as described in prj/build.lst - Why not use the oportunity to move (a part of) the build environment out > of the way to, say, build/ ? > You have guessed my next step. > > - How are dependencies between modules handled (just the manual > dependencies from prj/build.lst or also the file dependencies introduced by > gmake). > See doc. on --from. Its done with <module>.done files > - How is the output of the individual calls to dmake or GNU make > handled/made accessible. Ie. if there is a build error, how can I look up > the corresponding build output? > see doc. script make_log > > - Are the gmake makefiles included (run in the same process) or is GNU > make started for them it its own process? > For a start they would be called (own process), but its something where I have no strong opinions. Please (just to be sure), this proposal has nothing to do with the students work, its simply because I saw a positive discussion on removing build.pl, and spent a couple of hours looking at it. If there is a preference not to remove build.pl I will simply forget it. rgds jan I. > > > Regards, > Andre > > > >> It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. >> >> As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be >> considered in a makefile. >> >> My suggestion is on >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Build_System_Analysis:** >> build.pl_versus_makefile<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile> >> >> Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a >> lot, and some of them might be in use. >> >> thanks in advance for your comments. >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
