On 11/17/2010 04:39 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/17/2010 09:08 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
It's not simplification but to unify the build system. Some people
make changes to Makefiles and then test their changes without an
object directory, these may then break the build for those who use it.
This h
On 11/18/2010 12:05 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> It may be unified but it's pretty much unlike every other
> build system I've ever seen.
If you want another approach you could do what glibc does (IIRC),
which is to just give an error message if you invoke configure in
the source directory sugge
On 17 November 2010 22:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 09:08 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> It's not simplification but to unify the build system. Some people
>> make changes to Makefiles and then test their changes without an
>> object directory, these may then break the build for those who us
On 11/17/2010 09:08 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
It's not simplification but to unify the build system. Some people
make changes to Makefiles and then test their changes without an
object directory, these may then break the build for those who use it.
This has happened several times already. Hopefully w
On 11/17/2010 08:15 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
If the user attempts to run 'configure' in the source tree,
create an object directory and configure that instead.
Rename topmost Makefile to Makefile.top. Add a new Makefile, which
is only used when user attempts to run 'make' in the source tree.
Inte
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 08:15 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> If the user attempts to run 'configure' in the source tree,
>> create an object directory and configure that instead.
>>
>> Rename topmost Makefile to Makefile.top. Add a new Makefile, which
>>
