Re: [NEWBIE] Compiling a stock circle I got fromceramicmouse

From: Peter Ajamian (
Date: 01/24/01

"Daniel A. Koepke" wrote:
> I've always sort of wondered why configure pays attention to config.cache.
> It seems to me that there's no practical difference 99% of the time
> between running config.status to rewrite the Makefile, etc., or running
> configure with the results cached.  I think it'd make much more sense for
> configure to always reconfigure completely.  But what do I know?  I've
> never actually looked at it hard enough to make a proper judgement,
> though.  (So I really do wonder.  I wasn't being sarcastic, for once.)

Hrmmm, good point.  I'd imagine there's some reason for it, maybe just
because some people like to regenerate those files the same way they
were generated in the first place (or just don't know any better).  Oh
well, *shrugs*.

> Anyway, maybe a distclean script or Makefile rule is in order?
> --8<- cut ->8--
>   #!/bin/sh
>   cat << EOF
>   This script will delete the following files:
>     config.cache config.status config.log src/*.o src/Makefile
>     src/conf.h

You forgot bin/* and src/util/Makefile

There's an even better way, just throw in a file with the patterns of
all the files to exclude from the tarball and pass the filename to tar
with the -X switch to make tar exclude the files from the archive.
Could even write a simple script to make make the tarball automatically
(would be nice to have them all made up the same way so that we don't
get so many different formats, etc.).

> BTW, the advisory notice about making changes to Makefile or conf.h goes
> for everyone.  It's a dumb thing to do (and I've done it many times, so I
> know).  Don't make changes to an autogenerated file unless you are
> planning on making those changes every single time you need to switch
> platforms, run config.status, etc.  Patches that add files to be compiled
> should be especially careful in this regard.  Don't change someone's
> Makefile.  Your patch will stop working if they have to regenerate their
> Makefile which is annoying for your users.  And what's annoying for your
> users has a funny way of getting annoying to you.  Trust me...

The above left in on purpose because it deserves repeating.

Regards, Peter

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/03/01 PST