[gs-devel] Re: [Gs-code-review] Fixing up gsmake.tcl check problems
mike at easysw.com
Mon Apr 1 14:43:04 PST 2002
L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> I'm moving this discussion to gs-devel, because it's grown larger than a
> specific code review issue.
>>Yes, it seems clear that we need some kind of 'make dep' implementation.
> Agreed. The reason that I strongly recommend against adopting any of the
> existing 'make dep' programs that I know about is that they (1) edit the
> makefile in place, (2) produce completely concrete dependency lists (i.e.,
> with full path names rather than ones that have the directory names as
> parameters), (3) have to be run manually, separate from the normal build
> process, and (4) are tied to specific platforms and compilers.
> Regarding #3, I consider it unacceptable to *ever* have to run 'make dep' as
> a separate, manual step. Even in the present situation, invocations of
> 'make' far outnumber manual edits of the makefiles.
> Does anyone reading this list know of any dependency maintenance program
> that has none of the above 4 problems?
We use the following rule along with an include for many of the OSS
programs we maintain:
makedepend -Y [local include flags] -f Dependencies [source files]
This generates a (separate) dependency file for all of the named
source files, and omits the standard include directories (so you
only get local dependencies). We then distribute the generated
dependency files in case the end-user doesn't have "makedepend"
(or the equivalent compiler program + options) on their system.
For Ghostscript you could use something like "filename.dep" for
dependencies used by "filename.mak".
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
More information about the gs-devel