From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
I am not sure what this patch is trying to achieve.
It was probably a bit of 'don't mess with working code', given that
I'd used the NO_PERL solution, rather 'document the issue'....
Then this part applies, I think.
If you are not touching what this Makefile actually does, then I
would imagine that you are running the "buildsystems code" that
actually drives 'make -n' with some "available solution" (perhaps
you are running 'make -n NO_PERL=NoThanks' or something like that)?
Then instead of a command like this that nobody would read in this
file, the same command can instead go there to explain what the
"workaround" (e.g. unusual-looking 'make -n NO_PERL=NoThanks') is
doing?
I was more of the view that this was about prevention (here), rather
than retrospective explanation of the code (there).
In my case the errors were showing problems with the PM.stamp in the
makefile (I didn't have the solution at that point).
So either a short comment "# consider using 'NO_PERL=YesPlease' for dry
run invocations" (beware your double negative ;-), or the addition of
the '+recipe', would still be my preferred change, rather than leaving
the open manhole for others to fall into.
The thread on my difficulties is at $gmane/263656 (2015-02-10 22:51)
"
At the moment I'm getting (on my old WinXP machine, using Msysgit
1.9.5 as a basis)
$ make -n MSVC=1 V=1 1>makedry.txt
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `PM.stamp', needed by
`perl.mak'.
Stop.
make: *** [perl/perl.mak] Error 2
"
As you can see, at that time the place to look would be the makefile,
so I would do think a 'fix' there would still be appropriate.
Do you have a preference among the three options (comment, +recipe,
drop)?
--
Philip
--
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