On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:05:00PM +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Timo Buhrmester <fstd.l...@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> >> > Fatal error: can't create obj/backend.o: No such file or directory > >> >> >> create a dummy file in this directory and check that into the SCM. > >> >> > Why should the repository have to remember a build system detail? > >> >> > >> >> Because the build system is part of the code. > >> > It would still be preferable if the build system was stand-alone, rather > >> > than depending on a repository twist. > >> > >> It would be "preferable" if a SCM would just store whatever one desires > >> to put into it. > > Do you have any point or do you just enjoy typing? > > One could argue that I was somewhat careless in my first reply to you as > I actually wrote something about you (namely, "that's your opinion but > not mine") which sort-of solicitated an angry retort. ???
> However, stating that "a source code management system" or - better term > here - "version control system" should simply store whatever someone > desires to store in, just like - say - a filesystem, is certainly not > a personal remark. Correct, that is not a personal remark. Why are you pointing this out? Just to get back on topic since you obviously lost track of the discussion: - We have a build system. Let's call it build.sh for simplicity, regarless of what it is in reality. - build.sh is set to build the project in a directory called "obj". - "obj" has no other purpose than to hold the results of the build process. Who should create "obj", and why? I feel that using a repository hack to keep obj around introduces an unnecessary and trivially avoidable dependency. What if I don't obtain the source through a check-out of that repository? What is the benefit of /not/ having build.sh mkdir obj? _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
