[Adding the Automake list in CC:] On 06/20/2012 09:57 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:45:31PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Jeff King wrote: >> >>> Did you read the argument in patch 2? They are almost certainly not >>> helping anyone, anyway. >> >> Yes, I read patch 2. I hacked on git from time to time in the days >> before COMPUTE_HEADER_DEPENDENCIES, and it sometimes involved changing >> header files. When they were not in LIB_H, the experience was much >> nicer. >> >> Is that called "not helping"? I'm afraid I don't follow this line of >> argument at all. > > I just assumed that people who are actively hacking on individual header > files in git actually have a compiler that can do COMPUTE_HEADER_DEPENDENCIES. > Maybe that is not the case. If it were such a big deal, then why is > everything in LIB_H? Why don't people use these manual rules, or convert > existing LIB_H entries to use them? > > For people who are not actively hacking on header files in git, the > arguments from that patch apply (namely that LIB_H is so gigantic that > you are unlikely to hit a specific change where one of the few manual > rules is triggered, but LIB_H is not). > >> On the other hand, if someone were proposing adding a simple awk >> script to implement a "make dep" fallback, I would understand that. > > I'd be OK with that. Do you have one in mind, or do we need to write it > from scratch? Surely somebody else has solved this problem before. > [begin shameless plug] Have you taken a look at the 'depcomp' script that comes with Automake? <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/tree/lib/depcomp> Once you get past some of its idiosyncrasies and few historical warts, it has a lot of built-in knowledge about automatic dependency tracking for a lot of different compilers. [end shameless plug] HTH, Stefano -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html