So, has this topic been safely ignored by now? I mean, it's only a
desirable option. You wouldn't want to put it into the distribution for
people who want it. Otherwise, you'd be helping your end users.
--
|| Bill Wendling[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|| Coding Simian
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Wendling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 07 June 2002 20:41
> To: Alexandre Duret-Lutz
> Cc: Sam Steingold; Akim Demaille; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cache directory is not removed
>
>
> Also sprach Alexandre Duret
Also sprach Ralf Corsepius:
} Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 20.24 schrieb Bill Wendling:
} > Also sprach Ralf Corsepius:
} > } Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 17.23 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
} > } >
} > } > I think this is a relavent question; you need to tweak your config files to
} > } > stop this from being includ
Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 20.24 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> Also sprach Ralf Corsepius:
> } Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 17.23 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
> } >
> } > I think this is a relavent question; you need to tweak your config files to
> } > stop this from being included in the make dist tar ball.
> } If usi
Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
} Bill Wendling wrote:
} >
} > Of course, you run into the problem of having multiple packages you're
} > developing on the same machine and they're using the same
} > ${TMP}/autom4te.cache/ directory
}
} I suppose I should have mentioned that is a
} directory named
Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Bill Wendling wrote:
|> >
|> > Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
|> > } Sam Steingold wrote:
|> > } >
|> > } > > >
|> > } > >
|> > } > > So your real problem is where the cache directory is created. If it
|> > } > > weren't created in the source directory then
Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
> } Sam Steingold wrote:
> } >
> } > > >
> } > >
> } > > So your real problem is where the cache directory is created. If it
> } > > weren't created in the source directory then your problem would be
> } > > solved.
> } >
> } > pretty much yes.
>
Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
} Sam Steingold wrote:
} >
} > > >
} > >
} > > So your real problem is where the cache directory is created. If it
} > > weren't created in the source directory then your problem would be
} > > solved.
} >
} > pretty much yes.
} > /tmp/autocong.cache would be perfectly
Sam Steingold wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > So your real problem is where the cache directory is created. If it
> > weren't created in the source directory then your problem would be
> > solved.
>
> pretty much yes.
> /tmp/autocong.cache would be perfectly fine with me.
>
I was thinking more of /var
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>>>Sam> this is a major inconvenience.
>>>Sam> adding a --remove-cache option
>>>
>>>To who? Automake + autoconf + autoheader + autoscan + autoreconf +
>>>autom4te + autoupdate ?
>
> This option is already supported by all these tools.
> It's spelled `; rm -rf autom4t
Also sprach Alexandre Duret-Lutz:
} > > Sam> this is a major inconvenience.
} > >
} > > Sam> adding a --remove-cache option
} > >
} > > To who? Automake + autoconf + autoheader + autoscan + autoreconf +
} > > autom4te + autoupdate ?
}
} This option is already supported by all these tools.
} It
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:43:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote:
> now I will need to exclude the cache directory name, which includes
> the autoconf version number, i.e., I will have to change my `make dist`
> after every autoconf release.
I think it's a bug that you get a cache directory with the
Also sprach Ralf Corsepius:
} Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 17.23 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
} >
} > I think this is a relavent question; you need to tweak your config files to
} > stop this from being included in the make dist tar ball.
} If using automake, "make dist" does not put autom4te.caches into the
Also sprach Ralf Corsepius:
} Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 16.49 schrieb Bill Wendling:
} > } Steven> Again, it's a matter of tradeoffs and optimizing for the
} > } Steven> common case. On the one hand, programs spewing files as a
} > } Steven> side-effect that the user didn't explicitly request is
} > }
Also sprach Akim Demaille:
} > "Bill" == Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
}
} Bill> So, to summarize the complaints, we had a cache file
} Bill> (config.cache) which was useful to a small number of people but
} Bill> deemed "harmful" to the majority because of various compelling
} Bi
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:07:24 -0400
> * Honorable Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Sam Steingold wrote:
> > > * H
Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 17.23 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 07 June 2002 16:06
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: cache directo
Sam Steingold wrote:
>
> > * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> > * Sent on 07 Jun 2002 17:06:04 +0200
> > * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >>
Am Fre, 2002-06-07 um 16.49 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> Also sprach Akim Demaille:
> } > "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> }
> } >> They don't have understood the point. And then, why keep the .o
> } >> too? And the .deps?
> }
> } Steven> Again, it's a matter of trade
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on 07 Jun 2002 17:06:04 +0200
> * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[E
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 07 June 2002 16:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cache directory is not removed
>
>
> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Steingold
> "Bill" == Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> So, to summarize the complaints, we had a cache file
Bill> (config.cache) which was useful to a small number of people but
Bill> deemed "harmful" to the majority because of various compelling
Bill> arguments given on this list.
The
> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sam> nope. when I distribute CLISP, I cannot assume that my users
Sam> have autoconf, so I distribute the generated configure scripts
Sam> too. i.e., the configure scripts are in the source tree and are
Sam> regenerated just before a rele
Also sprach Akim Demaille:
}
} | I don't think anyone was advocating removing the autom4te.cache
} | creation, and I'm sure that there are valid uses for it. Yes, I also find
} | the amount of time it takes for autoconf to finish annoying, but when
} | you're working in a CVS directory, it's anno
Also sprach Akim Demaille:
} > "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
}
} >> They don't have understood the point. And then, why keep the .o
} >> too? And the .deps?
}
} Steven> Again, it's a matter of tradeoffs and optimizing for the
} Steven> common case. On the one han
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on 07 Jun 2002 07:58:24 +0200
> * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[EMA
> "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> They don't have understood the point. And then, why keep the .o
>> too? And the .deps?
Steven> Again, it's a matter of tradeoffs and optimizing for the
Steven> common case. On the one hand, programs spewing files as a
Steven> si
| > * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
| > * Sent on Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:46:15 -0500
| > * Honorable Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > BTW, the removal of automatically generating
| I don't think anyone was advocating removing the autom4te.cache
| creation, and I'm sure that there are valid uses for it. Yes, I also find
| the amount of time it takes for autoconf to finish annoying, but when
| you're working in a CVS directory, it's annoying to have this directory
| there..
> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, although I find it stupid, I'm ok to provide some
>> --remove-cache. But I'm definitely against making this the
>> default. I'm ok to rename it as .autom4te.cache too, if you find
>> it so ugly.
Sam> please do so!
Actually, I rem
> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 06 Jun 2002 11:26:02 -0400
>>
>> I could never understand why autoconf was written in m4 in the
>> first place. this is not a troll, I would really appreciate a
>> clarification.
Read the do
Bill Wendling wrote:
[snip]
> If there's a problem with old stuff being in the cache, then that stuff
> probably doesn't belong in the cache.
>
> For our users, they rerun configure to add different options. The generic
> checks (for libraries, header files, sizeof types, etc) shouldn't need to
"Steven G. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > So now I run `configure -C' always. I use the cache files to
> > determine problem areas of my runtime libraries.
>
> Bill Wendling wrote:
> > BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache file by
> > default was a bad idea,
Also sprach Steven G. Johnson:
}
} They shouldn't need to be re-checked only if the configure script is, as
} you say, being re-run just to add different options. However, if they
} are re-installing after a system reconfiguration, or simply copied the
} entire build directory over to another
Bill Wendling wrote:
> If there's a problem with old stuff being in the cache, then that stuff
> probably doesn't belong in the cache.
>
> For our users, they rerun configure to add different options. The generic
> checks (for libraries, header files, sizeof types, etc) shouldn't need to
> be rer
Sam Steingold wrote:
> not at all. this is a common case of "developer's egotism":
>...
> autoconf _users_ run _autoconf_ rarely, so they do not care about its
> speed (but they do care about the junk it leaves behind!), but they run
> _configure_ (relatively) often, so they do care about its spe
Also sprach Steven G. Johnson:
} Earnie Boyd wrote:
} > So now I run `configure -C' always. I use the cache files to
} > determine problem areas of my runtime libraries.
}
} Bill Wendling wrote:
} > BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache file by
} > default was a bad idea,
Earnie Boyd wrote:
> So now I run `configure -C' always. I use the cache files to
> determine problem areas of my runtime libraries.
Bill Wendling wrote:
> BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache file by
> default was a bad idea, in my opinion. We actually use that file qui
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:46:15 -0500
> * Honorable Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:19:58AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Merely replacing m4 with Perl won't dramatically improve
> Autoconf/Automake/Make/etc. If we want to improve things in a big
> way, we need to rethink the entire build process, and then decide what
> tools to use to implement the new
> From: Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 06 Jun 2002 11:26:02 -0400
>
> I could never understand why autoconf was written in m4 in the first
> place. this is not a troll, I would really appreciate a clarification.
>
> perl or, better yet, clisp (http://clisp.cons.org) appear to be more
Also sprach Akim Demaille:
} > "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
}
} Steven> Bill Wendling wrote:
} >> I concur. It is an annoyance. Having a flag (--remove-cache) as
} >> mentioned above would be very nice. Having the cache directory is
} >> fine, but keeping them ther
Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
}
} There is an easy way to get rid of the cache directory. It involves a
} simple command. This commands repeated use will not even come close to
} the amount of bits spread for this thread and others like it. Just `rm
} -rf autom4te-2.53.cache' if you don't want it
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There are some bottlenecks in M4 (we are asking more services than it
> provides now, such as the call stack). The day this is C code instead
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:02:41 -0500
> * Honorable Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Also sprach Sam Steingold:
> } > * Hono
> "Steven" == Steven G Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> Bill Wendling wrote:
>> I concur. It is an annoyance. Having a flag (--remove-cache) as
>> mentioned above would be very nice. Having the cache directory is
>> fine, but keeping them there is a pain...
I don't think you reali
"Steven G. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Bill Wendling wrote:
> > I concur. It is an annoyance. Having a flag (--remove-cache) as mentioned
> > above would be very nice. Having the cache directory is fine, but keeping
> > them there is a pain...
>
> I would go further and suggest that perhaps this should
Bill Wendling wrote:
> I concur. It is an annoyance. Having a flag (--remove-cache) as mentioned
> above would be very nice. Having the cache directory is fine, but keeping
> them there is a pain...
I would go further and suggest that perhaps this should be the default
behavior...probably the va
Also sprach Sam Steingold:
} > * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
} > * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
} > * Sent on 05 Jun 2002 09:08:46 +0200
} > * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
} >
} > >>>>
> * In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * On the subject of "Re: cache directory is not removed"
> * Sent on 05 Jun 2002 09:08:46 +0200
> * Honorable Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[EMAIL
> "Sam" == Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sam> when I run autoconf the usual way, it runs "autom4te" which
Sam> creates cache directory "autom4te-2.53.cache" and does not remove
Sam> it at the end. I think that this directory should be deleted
Sam> before `autom4te' terminates.
N
51 matches
Mail list logo
