On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote:
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.
Yes, that is how I understood it. I just did not know how to call the
build.pl replacement.
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.
I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I
will try to explain what I think they do.
Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and
E. where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D.
A ' make all' would mean 'make E'. The dependencies would then lead to
building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order.
If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be
built. A 'make --since C' would only build D and E.
If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are
built. Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D.
Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make
--all:<module>' does not).
Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B')
module A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or
not. Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build
all modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly. Thus the options
'--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built.
The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple
options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid
use case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then
in the simple example above. Let's say that if we stand in
instsetoo_native and call 'make --from svx sfx2'. Note that svx depends
on sfx2. This would build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend
(directly or indirectly) on svx OR sfx2.
While this is easy to do with eg Perl I am not sure how to handle this
with just a Makefile. The straightforward approach with handling
<module>.done files does not work. And that is one of the reasons why I
don't think that (GNU) makefiles are a good solution for any problem.
Most of us are used to program object oriented/imperative. Makefiles
require a declarative approach. Maybe the use of Perl is not such a bad
idea. Maybe it would be better to reimplement build.pl with a lot fewer
options and with better readable code.
-Andre
--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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
