bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/08/2013 10:11 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more >>> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to >>> the agreed form ;-) -- whic

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/08/2013 05:13 AM, Miles Bader wrote: >>> Hmm, if that's the case, then I think "canon" is the wrong term to >>> use, as it typically implies that the result is still in the same >>> domain as the input. >>> >> Suggestions for a better name then? > > Dunno... something like "RELDIR_SYM" woul

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more >> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to >> the agreed form ;-) -- which if I'm not mistaken is: >> >> - make the seri

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more > control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to > the agreed form ;-) -- which if I'm not mistaken is: > > - make the series consist of only two patches, one introducing

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

>> Hmm, if that's the case, then I think "canon" is the wrong term to >> use, as it typically implies that the result is still in the same >> domain as the input. >> > Suggestions for a better name then? Dunno... something like "RELDIR_SYM" would make sense ... it's a symbol corresponding to RELD

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/07/2013 10:52 AM, Miles Bader wrote: >>> ... and "canon_reldir" means the same thing, except canonicalized? >>> >> Yes, "canonicalized" in a sense quite specific to Automake: >> >> >> >> >> So, for example, if %re

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

>> ... and "canon_reldir" means the same thing, except canonicalized? >> > Yes, "canonicalized" in a sense quite specific to Automake: > > > > So, for example, if %reldir% expands to 'foo/bar-baz.d', '%canon-reldir%' > w

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/05/2013 02:01 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > %...% seems nice to me. > I'm fine to settle for that (see my reply to last mail from Peter for more details). > Incidentally, given the name, I assume the name "reldir" always refers > to a relative path? What is it relative to again? > The path of th

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/05/2013 12:03 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-04 19:11, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 02/04/2013 06:33 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> So they aren't quite affected by configure, but they are dependent on >>> relative location, just like existing substitutions like @top_srcdir@ >>> are depende

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

%...% seems nice to me. I don't think "typability" should be a prime factor in deciding, especially such trivial issues such as shifted-characters (like 75% of punctuation in Makefiles is shifted on most keyboards); readability is _much_ more important (and readability in many cases means not too

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-04 19:11, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/04/2013 06:33 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> So they aren't quite affected by configure, but they are dependent on >> relative location, just like existing substitutions like @top_srcdir@ >> are dependent on relative location. >> > Yes, but they are d

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 06:33 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/04/2013 10:19 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Because it would mix up very different concepts: a '@...@' substitution >> is meant for something that depends on configure-time check (or at >> least from code in configure), and is substituted the same

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 10:19 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Because it would mix up very different concepts: a '@...@' substitution > is meant for something that depends on configure-time check (or at > least from code in configure), and is substituted the same in *every* > Makefile and makefile fragment;

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 03:06 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-04 14:43, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 02/04/2013 01:04 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> I {{think}} this one will be the easiest on us all. >>> >> I tend to agree (but see Peter Johansson's proposal to use >> {AM_RELDIR} instead; what do you thin

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-04 14:43, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/04/2013 01:04 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> I {{think}} this one will be the easiest on us of all. BTW, that was a mix of "on us all" and "on all of us", if anyone didn't notice... >> > I tend to agree (but see Peter Johansson's proposal to use >

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 01:04 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-04 12:33, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 02/04/2013 10:35 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Not sure what to do about it, or if it matters... >>> >> It does IMHO, since the failure you pointed out, albeit easy to >> work around, wouldn't be very obvi

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 01:44 PM, Peter Johansson wrote: > On 2/4/13 9:33 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> What about doubling the curly braces? As in '{{RELDIR}}'. >> Would that be tolerable? Other possibilities (none particularly >> pleasant either, IMHO): >> >>{+RELDIR+} >>{:RELDIR:} >>{.RELD

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2/4/13 9:33 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: What about doubling the curly braces? As in '{{RELDIR}}'. Would that be tolerable? Other possibilities (none particularly pleasant either, IMHO): {+RELDIR+} {:RELDIR:} {.RELDIR.} {-RELDIR-} Other proposals? Using Automake's namespace, '

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-04 12:33, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/04/2013 10:35 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Not sure what to do about it, or if it matters... >> > It does IMHO, since the failure you pointed out, albeit easy to > work around, wouldn't be very obvious to diagnose, from the point > of view of a non

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-04 12:23, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 02/04/2013 12:10 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2013-02-03 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> I've pushed the promised patches to the rewindable branch >>> 'experimental/preproc' (based off of maint). I'll also soon >>> send them to the list to sim

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 10:35 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-04 00:10, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2013-02-03 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> I've pushed the promised patches to the rewindable branch >>> 'experimental/preproc' (based off of maint). I'll also soon >>> send them to the list to simplify

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/04/2013 12:10 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-03 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> I've pushed the promised patches to the rewindable branch >> 'experimental/preproc' (based off of maint). I'll also soon >> send them to the list to simplify review (I will drop the >> bug tracker from CC

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-04 00:10, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-03 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> I've pushed the promised patches to the rewindable branch >> 'experimental/preproc' (based off of maint). I'll also soon >> send them to the list to simplify review (I will drop the >> bug tracker from CC:,

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-02-03 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > I've pushed the promised patches to the rewindable branch > 'experimental/preproc' (based off of maint). I'll also soon > send them to the list to simplify review (I will drop the > bug tracker from CC:, to avoid cluttering up the report). > > As us

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

tags 13524 + patch thanks [+cc automake-patches] Reference: On 01/28/2013 12:38 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 2013-01-27 20:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> This time with documentation and a NEWS entry. I also fixed the case >>

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Hi all, On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 2013-01-27 20:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> This time with documentation and a NEWS entry. I also fixed the case >>> of including something above the current base Makefile.am with a >>> relative path, e.g.: >>> >

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 02/01/2013 04:18 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi Stefano, >> >> On 2013-01-27 20:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote: This time with documentation and a NEWS entry. I also fixed the case of including something above the current

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Hi Stefano, On 2013-01-27 20:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> This time with documentation and a NEWS entry. I also fixed the case >> of including something above the current base Makefile.am with a >> relative path, e.g.: >> >> include ../top.mk >> >> That change shaved a couple of more lines

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Hi Peter. On 01/27/2013 01:54 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> Zapping the NIH part reduced the code size significantly (the patch >> is now short, sweet and unintrusive again) so I'm posting a new version. >> After all, it's a new day, right? >> >> I hope it's ok to use File::Spec->abs2rel

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-01-25 17:03, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-01-24 13:22, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2013-01-23 16:08, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> On 01/23/2013 03:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: On 2013-01-23 13:45, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> *snip* > Too much automagic here IMO. We'd better have two dis

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-01-24 13:22, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-01-23 16:08, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 03:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> On 2013-01-23 13:45, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > *snip* Too much automagic here IMO. We'd better have two distinct subst, one for the "real" directory

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-01-23 16:08, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 01/23/2013 03:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2013-01-23 13:45, Stefano Lattarini wrote: *snip* >>> Too much automagic here IMO. We'd better have two distinct subst, one for >>> the "real" directory name, and one for the directory name "canonicali

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 01/23/2013 03:34 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-01-23 13:45, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. >> >> Not sure if you are in the mood (or have the time) to engage in a >> discussion about it, but here my review anyway. Even if you are not >> going to work on this patc

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-01-23 13:45, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. > > Not sure if you are in the mood (or have the time) to engage in a > discussion about it, but here my review anyway. Even if you are not > going to work on this patch anymore, a review will still be useful > as a r

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Not sure if you are in the mood (or have the time) to engage in a discussion about it, but here my review anyway. Even if you are not going to work on this patch anymore, a review will still be useful as a reference to me or other developers in the future. On 01/2

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Hello Miles, thanks for the feedback. On 01/23/2013 07:54 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > Stefano Lattarini writes: >>> E.g., if I have a directory "foo" that has sources etc, and builds >>> some specific targets, then I can isolate the automake stuff for foo >>> by using an include file "foo/Makefile.a

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Stefano Lattarini writes: >> E.g., if I have a directory "foo" that has sources etc, and builds >> some specific targets, then I can isolate the automake stuff for foo >> by using an include file "foo/Makefile.am.inc" or something, and then >> putting an appropriate include in the top-level Makefi

bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

On 2013-01-22 10:18, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > [+cc bug-automake, so that we won't forget about the issue] > [future replies should drop the automake list] > > On 01/22/2013 02:22 AM, Miles Bader wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini writes: >>> The best solution is on the user-side IMHO: fix the build sy