Re: [PATCH/RFC] "Recursive Make considered harmful"

From: A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 27, 2005, 15:32 UTC
Message-ID: <42E7A8FC.3080904@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050727143720.GG7410@birddog.com>

Kirby C. Bohling wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:25:10AM -0400, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>>Ryan Anderson wrote:
>>>Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
>>>
>>Please explain the rational for this.
> 
> I'm new to the list, but given the subject, I'm fairly confident
> it's this.
> 
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html
>

...

Show 5 quoted lines

> 
> He used the exact wording just about everyone dones when referring
> to it conceptually.  It's easy to google for support and rebuttal:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Recursive+Make+considered+harmful&btnG=Google+Search

Thanks for the references.

A quick read of the paper and some of the rebuttals make me think that 
either way (recursive/non-recursive):
	* require about the same amount of makefile/dependency maintenance work 
from developers.
	* allow developers to be lazy in different ways with 
makefiles/dependencies.
	* achieves the same end.

The non-recursive make method may have a small advantage for developers using Git for their SCM because the Git operations are also performed at the top level due to Git's design.