Re: [GUILT 1/5] Fix generation of Documentation/usage-%.txt.
- From
- Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net>
- Date
- Jan 23, 2015, 14:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150123143614.GG101465@meili.jeffnet.31bits.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAP=KgsSMT7Wniek1FgRGkrxa9+45hxcDtE-C1B4sQMvUviKJ1g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:
Show 39 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:24:55PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:
> >> The old rule worked, most of the time, but had several issues:
> >>
> >> - It depended on the corresponding guilt-*.txt file, but the usage.sh
> >> script actually reads ../guilt-foo.
> >>
> >> - Actually, each usage-%.txt depended on all guilt-*.txt files, so
> >> make had to do more work than necessary if a single file was
> >> altered.
> >>
> >> - The construct broke parallel make, which would spawn several
> >> usage.sh at once. This leads to unnecessary work, and could
> >> potentially result in broken usage files if the "echo some_string >
> >> some_file" construct used by usage.sh isn't atomic.
> >>
> >> Fixed by letting the usage.sh script update a single file, and writing
> >> a proper implicit make rule. This makes parallel make work a lot
> >> better.
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> >> There is a small downside, though, as usage.sh will now be run once
> >> for each command (if everything is regenerated). I think it is worth
> >> to pay that price to get the correctness. This command is still very
> >> fast compared to the docbook processing.
> >
> > Given how much simple usage.sh got, I'm thinking it might be worth it to
> > just remove it, and just shove the rule into the makefile itself.
> >
> > Ok, I tried to write it. I came up with the following. (Note: I have *not*
> > tested it.) It's not *that* ugly.
> >
> > usage-guilt-%.txt: ../guilt-% usage.sh
> > echo "'$(basename $<)' `sed -n -e '/^USAGE=/{s/USAGE="//; s/"$//; p; q}' $<`" > $@
> >
> > What do you think? Too opaque? Your change looks good.
>
> Too opaque,Between that and the other patch in the series that modifies usage.sh, your patch is good as is.
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net>
Show 5 quoted lines
> and not tested enough. It doesn't work, since make will > handle all $. You need to write $$ instead of $ in at least one of the > places. I would stick with usage.sh, as getting the quoting right when > you have make, shell, subshells, and sed all at the same time is just > too painful.
And this is comming from the person that rewrote cmd/shouldfail in a way that the average shell user will go "whaaa??" :P (To be fair, I don't know of a simpler way to make cmd/shouldfail.)
> But it is of course up to you. You are the maintainer. :-)
Heh.
Jeff.
-- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.