sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>
- To: Karsten Behrmann <BearPerson AT gmx.net>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:56:47 -0800
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 08:26:24PM +0100, Karsten Behrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:20:03 -0800
> Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org> wrote:
> > > Any spells that do anything with libraries can potentially disrupt the
> > > cache. I would suggest those would be all with "\.h$" matching anywhere
> > > in their install log. Unfortunately, I guess the cache would simply
> > > have to be deleted after a cast of one of them. I would not advise us
> > > to delete the cache based on the install log though. This should be
> > > set intelligently by the spell writers... (if they can manage)
> >
> > Ah. I see. I think grepping the install log for files in
> > /lib,/usr/lib,(+paths in /etc/ld.so.conf) and *.h *.hxx would be more
> > intelligent than developers though, or is there a counterexample?
> > Perhaps we can allow developers to override the heuristics.
>
> Yeah, we could...
> Though that would mean this is a major change, not a "If the spell is
> not changed it won't break anything" change... The problem is that
> giving a ./configure stale info might not break the configure itself
> but only produce weird and strange results far later in the cast.
> So I would rather be careful that wrong...
My thinking is you have:
1) developers who need to add one more thing
2) spells that all need to be gone through manually
Whereas I have:
1) developers need to only touch outlandishly strange spells
2) spells don't all need to be gone through manually.
In either case, configure cache would be off by default and only enabled
with a label as "risky". Were you thinking of having config.cache
cleared by default and allowing spells to override, or by having all
spells that are configure-checkable touched to be made to clear the
config cache. In the latter case, you're worse off than under my
proposal for weird behavior. In the former, then you don't get any
benefit until you add it to every spell that isn't library or
header-providing. Just wondering.
BTW, dispel needs to be "config.cache" aware as well.
Seth
--
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id EF10E21A = 36AD 8A92 8499 8439 E6A8 3724 D437 AF5D EF10 E21A
http://smgl.positivism.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEF10E21A
Security Team Leader Source Mage GNU/Linux http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgph34P4AHPyk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/09/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?, Seth Alan Woolley, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/09/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] ./configure cache?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 02/09/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.