[Patches] [Patch #103318] non-recursive makefile

noreply@sourceforge.net noreply@sourceforge.net
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:46:36 -0800


Patch #103318 has been updated. 

Project: python
Category: Build
Status: Open
Submitted by: nascheme
Assigned to : gvanrossum
Summary: non-recursive makefile

Follow-Ups:

Date: 2001-Jan-24 06:46
By: nascheme

Comment:
Should I check this in now?
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2001-Jan-22 07:27
By: nascheme

Comment:
Cleaned up Cygwin build.  Tested with lastest Cygwin on Win98.  Added
(some?) header file dependencies.  Partially merged Linux .so patch.  
Signal module is now enabled by configure.  Things are looking good.
I only have access to Linux, Cygwin, and Solaris.  Please test on other
platforms.
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2001-Jan-19 14:44
By: gvanrossum

Comment:
Let's put this off until after the 2.1a1 release.  It should go into 2.1a2
though, and probably should be checked in soon after 2.1a1 is released.

-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2001-Jan-19 10:13
By: nascheme

Comment:
Fix silly bug ("! test -f" instead of "test ! -f" in 
configure.in).
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2001-Jan-18 20:43
By: nascheme

Comment:
New patch.  I think makesetup works as it should.  There is
one issue with MAKE_LDLIBRARY on cygwin but it should be
easy to fix.  Object files for threads and dynamic loading
show be okay now.  I might be missing a few "clean" targets.

I removed a bunch of "foo.o: $(srcdir)/foo.c" lines.  As
far as I can tell they are useless.  Any make that supports
VPATH should be able to figure out where to get the source.
Other makes can look in the same dir as the source file.
Surely they are not that broken.  Guido, do you know if
there was a good reason for these lines?

Building with GNU make works great for any situation I
can think of.  pmake is not smart enough to
re-read the makefile if it got updated.  I don't know of
any way around that.  Building in a separate dir works
fine.

I didn't do buildno because I like to type "make" and see
the prompt come back right away.  What is buildno for and
when should it be incremented?
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2001-Jan-18 18:56
By: gvanrossum

Comment:
I'm in a quandary.  This is really awesone!  But a bit too rough to add to
the 2.1a1 release.

You don't seem to deal with buildno properly -- what's the problem there?

Also, I seem to recall that the "-o file.o" option is not universal amongst
C compilers.  Could someone who uses a non-GCC compiler (e.g. SunPro, or
HP, or AIX) check the portability of this Makefile?
-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------
For more info, visit:

http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=103318&group_id=5470