From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8678 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2011 10:00:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 8669 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2011 10:00:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:00:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LEC00H008YR4A00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:59:54 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.219.104]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LEC00FRS93TJKJ0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:59:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:00:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch] make info regression on --with-system-readline In-reply-to: <20110101093815.GA24535@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83y675osbp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110101011319.GA27139@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <8339pdq8la.fsf@gnu.org> <20110101093815.GA24535@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:38:15 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com > > On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:25:21 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Aren't you supposed to "make distclean" whenever you reconfigure? > > In normal projects I am not used to. In GDB I do "make clean" but it may not > be fully reliable, I believe there is more broken in GDB build system. "make distclean" _should_ be reliable, since its main raison d'etre is to allow a clean build after re-configuration. So maybe we should fix that instead (e.g., it doesn't currently remove GDBvn.texi). > But even if you do just first configure it is now broken in GDB as the files > get inappropriately distributed. Sorry, I don't follow. Can you describe the scenario in more detail? > > E.g., what about all the *.o files you didn't remove? > > They depend on config.h which gets regenerated. Ah, yes, that nuisance. I remember complaining about that a few years ago, but my opinions were voted down. > Maybe if you only change CFLAGS and config.h stays the same (and it preserves > its timestamp). you would need `make clean'. But that's just it: without a very thorough examination of the Makefile's, you cannot tell whether a given project will DTRT after reconfiguration, unless you "make distclean". > > However, I don't like rules that depend of Makefiles, because they > > tend to be re-run too much for no good reason. Note that this will > > re-make the docs each time you reconfigure, even if you didn't change > > the configuration. > > We can stamp etc. GDBvn.texi if it is a concern (I do not find it so). I prefer to do with GDBvn.texi what many projects do with config.h: regenerate it on a temporary file, then use move-if-change to move it into the real file. Would that resolve your problem? It certainly resolves mine. > > > Another issue is that GDBvn.texi and gdb-cfg.texi should not be distributed. > > > > How can we not distribute them when gdb.texinfo @include's them, and > > needs that for setting some of the variables the manual uses? If we > > don't distribute them, end users will be unable to rebuild the manual. > > What am I missing here? > > Both files are generated from gdb/doc/Makefile. Yes, sorry, I was before my breakfast coffee. See my other message with more sensible responses (I hope).