On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 11:10 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> +Documentation/GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS: Makefile config.mak.uname
> >> + $(QUIET_GEN)echo "EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS := $(EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS)" >$@
> >
> > Should this rule also have a dependency upon "config.mak.autogen"?
>
> That is probably a good point.
>
> > Perhaps like this:
> >
> > Documentation/GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS: Makefile $(wildcard config.mak*)
>
> I'd rather not let changes to "config.mak-", which I keep in my
> working tree (untracked and disabled copy of config.mak, that can be
> readily activated by renaming), be part of dependency rules.
>
> If we know 'autogen' is the only dependency that optionally can
> exist, then depending explicitly on $(wildcard config.mak.autogen)
> would be a better alternative.
When composing that email, I originally wrote $(wildcard
config.mak.autogen) as the suggestion but changed it to the looser
$(wildcard config.mak*) when I realized that the developer's own
config.mak probably ought to be a dependency, as well. Taking your
objection into consideration, we could mention both explicitly:
Documentation/GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS: Makefile \
$(wildcard config.mak) $(wildcard config.mak.autogen)
