From: Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:30:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] auto-detect changed $prefix in Makefile and properly rebuild to avoid broken install
Message-ID: <f36b08ee0606141330l28330d79hab1aec5c741188c7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vver3cxlw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 6/14/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Many times, I mistakenly used 'make prefix=... install' where prefix value
> > was different from prefix value during build. This resulted in broken
> > install. This patch adds auto-detection of $prefix change to the Makefile.
> > This results in correct install whenever prefix is changed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@gmail.com>
>
> I do not mind this per se, and probably even agree that this is
> an improvement compared to the current state of affairs, but a few
> points:
>
>  - please make sure you clean that state file in "make clean";
done

>  - we may want to make the state file a bit more visible (IOW, I
>    somewhat do mind the name being dot-git-dot-prefix).
I renamed .git.prefix to GIT-PREFIX. Is this ok.

>  - we might want to later (or at the same time as this patch)
>    do "consistent set of compilation flags" (e.g. run early
>    part of compilation with openssl SHA-1 implementation,
>    interrupt it and build and link the rest with mozilla SHA-1
>    implementation -- then you will get a nonsense binary without
>    linker errors).  It might make sense to prepare this
>    mechanism so we could reuse it for that purpose.

Do you think two separate GIT-PREFIX and GIT-BUILD-FLAGS are needed,
or just once GIT-BUILD-FLAGS will do, which will include
prefixes (as passed with -D... to cc) ?

I think single GIT-BUILD-FLAGS
is enough, which will cover prefixes, too. Is this OK ?

BTW, I think it's useful to add Makefile itself as prerequisite for all *.o,
so change in Makefile will cause recompilations. Shall I include this
into this patch, too ?

Yakov