Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add missing dependencies of 'config-list.h'
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 8, 2021, 23:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YG+UeQRwdBsVeRNV@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <87pmz4ig4o.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:08:23AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> > -config-list.h: > > +config-list.h: Documentation/*config.txt Documentation/config/*.txt > > $(QUIET_GEN)$(SHELL_PATH) ./generate-configlist.sh \ > > >$@+ && mv $@+ $@ > > > > command-list.h: generate-cmdlist.sh command-list.txt > > > > -command-list.h: $(wildcard Documentation/git*.txt) Documentation/*config.txt Documentation/config/*.txt > > +command-list.h: $(wildcard Documentation/git*.txt) > > $(QUIET_GEN)$(SHELL_PATH) ./generate-cmdlist.sh \ > > $(patsubst %,--exclude-program %,$(EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS)) \ > > command-list.txt >$@+ && mv $@+ $@ > > This change makes sense.
I agree it looks like it's moving in the right direction, but I am slightly puzzled by the existing code. Why do we need to use $(wildcard) for git*.txt, but not for the others?
Show 11 quoted lines
> I have a not-yet-submitted patch series where I added some more > config/*/*.txt that wouldn't be caught by this rule, I'd updated the > Documentation/Makefile, but missed this part in the top-level Makefile. > > So a relation question: Does anyone actually prefer this state of > affairs of having a Makefile, Documentation/Makefile, t/Makefile > t/perf/Makefile and template/Makefile? > > It seems to me with ever-closer coupling between them that it's getting > to be more of a hassle to manage state between them than it would be to > just move them all into one big Makefile.
Yes, I'm generally a fan of avoiding recursive make when we can. I think the caveats are:
- it would be nice to continue to have stub Makefiles in
sub-directories that trigger the main one (so "cd t && make"
continues to work, for example). - we may need some cleanup of parts of the top-level Makefile which
are triggered without dependencies (e.g., I think we unconditionally
run some scripts to compute GIT_VERSION in the top-level; this is
already a bit wasteful, but may get even more so as we add more
rules from sub-directories).Mostly my argument against it (and why I haven't purused it) would be: it sounds like a lot of work and risk of regression, and the current system seems pretty fine in practice.
-Peff