| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1009.1 | Re: help with OSF makefiles | SMURF::FILTER | Automatic Posting Software - mail to flume::puck | Tue Oct 18 1994 00:08 | 14 |
| Date Of Receipt: 17-OCT-1994 22:50:43.99
From: FLUME::jmcg "Jim McGinness"
To: [email protected]
CC: buildhelp@DEC:.zko.flume
Subj: Re: help with OSF makefiles
What you're trying to do is admirable, but the typical way our Makefiles
work is to rebuild the object modules specified in the OFILES. You
can conserve on the source modules and only put it in one place -- this
takes a VPATH directive, but trying to share the .o file can cause problems
with build order.
-- jmcg
|
| 1009.2 | Re: help with OSF makefiles | SMURF::FILTER | Automatic Posting Software - mail to flume::puck | Tue Oct 18 1994 13:32 | 26 |
| Date Of Receipt: 18-OCT-1994 12:26:04.42
From: WASTED::"[email protected]"
To: Jim McGinness <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
Subj: Re: help with OSF makefiles
I don't understand your "conserve on source" strategy. Are you saying
that I should #include procedures? That would not allow me to do file
scoping. What I can do is create a library like vdump/vrestore, but that
seems like a lot of bother (3 directories with Makefiles, etc) for 2
simple utilties.
Alan
On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Jim McGinness wrote:
> What you're trying to do is admirable, but the typical way our Makefiles
> work is to rebuild the object modules specified in the OFILES. You
> can conserve on the source modules and only put it in one place -- this
> takes a VPATH directive, but trying to share the .o file can cause problems
> with build order.
>
> -- jmcg
>
|
| 1009.3 | Re: help with OSF makefiles | SMURF::FILTER | Automatic Posting Software - mail to flume::puck | Tue Oct 18 1994 14:36 | 30 |
| Date Of Receipt: 18-OCT-1994 12:59:42.59
From: FLUME::jmcg "Jim McGinness"
To: [email protected]
CC: buildhelp@DEC:.zko.flume
Subj: Re: help with OSF makefiles
Now that I'm more awake, the simplest solution seems to be using a
single directory for both of the programs. The Makefile gets just a
little more complicated (you need two OFILES lines instead of one),
but it achieves all the goals I can infer from your original message.
In trying to find an existing Makefile to recommend as an example, I
looked at usr/bin/nroff/Makefile and usr/bin/troff/Makefile and found
that they have done something completely stupid: they've duplicated
what were once common source files and now the source files have
diverged (i.e. fixes applied to one have not been applied to the
other). Don't emulate that!
I think looking at usr/sbin/bootpd/Makefile will show you what I
mean about two OFILES lines: you need one qualified for each of the
PROGRAMS.
If you don't like the suggestion of a combined source directory, take
a look at usr/sbin/restore/Makefile. You'll see an example of using
VPATH to pull in a source file from a related command (in this case,
"dump"). It also shows two programs being created from a single
source directory, so shows an OFILES directive for each program.
--jmcg
|