Rasmus Tamstorf wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Derek R. Price wrote:
>
> <--- snip --->
>
>> Maybe that's not exactly what you wanted, but Autoconf is already set up to handle
>it.
>> Note that all the source files not generated by configure will still be under
>topdir/,
>> not topdir/arch?, and a properly constructed Makefile will still be able to find
>them.
>> The idea is that the build area will mirror the structure of the source area, so
>> topdir/arch1/src/package1 should have files built from sources in
>> topdir/src/package1...
>>
>> These aren't separate projects, are they? Such that they could each have their own
>> configure script and a controlling Makefile that would cause a build to descend into
>> each arch-specific directory, run the appropriate configure script, and then run
>each
>> build?
>
>
> No, these are not separate projects. Just subpackages in one big project.
> - And I *am* aware that autoconf much prefers to do it the way you
> describe. However, the idea behind trying to do it the other way is that
> while you're developing the code (typically one of the subpackages at a
> time) it's nice to be able to rebuild the code frequently and have easy
> access to the result. If the objects get build into a subdirectory of my
> code directory this means that I just have to put './arch1' in my PATH and
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH to pick up my latest version. No need to do an
> installation for each iteration of the code-debug-code cycle.
> Alternatively, if I don't do an installation, but still want to pick up
> the latest code I have to put something like ../../arch1/src/package1 in
> the appropriate environment variables and I have to update that every time
> I cd into a new subpackage which becomes quite a hassle.
>
> I can see the benefit of the way you describe in the case of code
> distribution, because you can then have your code on a read-only
> filesystem (CD-ROM or such) and still build it on a read-write filesystem.
> However, I don't have such a constraint and my main concern is to make
> developers as efficient as possible.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious though, so if anyone would like to
> enlighten me about how to deal easily with the code-debug-code cycle using
> a separate build tree, please let me know.
I have had some developers complain about continually doing make
installs. We came up with a make link target that created softlinks in
the installation directory that pointed back to the built files. We
also had a make unlink which cleaned up the installation.
Michael
>
> Rasmus
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A problem worthy of attack,
> Walt Disney Feature Animation proves its worth by hitting back" Kumbel
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bletzinger Software Developer, Alliance Computational
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Environment & Security
217 265 5137 NCSA
