martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
> Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@zope.com> writes:
>
> > Only if distutils grows a way to specify all those dependencies. Once
> > you've specified them, I'm not sure why it is difficult to check them
> > in Python code instead of relying on make.
>
> I believe people normally want their build process to know
> dependencies without any specification of dependencies. Instead, the
> build process should know what the dependencies are by looking at the
> source files.
>
> For C, there are two ways to do that: you can either scan the sources
> yourself for include statements, or you can let the compiler dump
> dependency lists into files.
>
> The latter is only supported for some compilers, but it would help
> enourmously: when compiling the first time, you know for sure that you
> will need to compile. When compiling the second time, you read the
> dependency information generated the first time, to determine whether
> any of the included headers has changed. If that is not the case, you
> can skip rebuilding. If you do rebuild, the dependency information
> will be updated automatically (since the change might have been to add
> an include).
$ cd ~/src/sf/python/dist/src/Lib/distutils/command/
$ ls -l build_dep.py
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mwh mwh 763 Apr 13 11:18 build_dep.py
Had that idea. Didn't get very far with it, though. Maybe on the
train to EuroPython...
Cheers,
M.
--
The gripping hand is really that there are morons everywhere, it's
just that the Americon morons are funnier than average.
-- Pim van Riezen, alt.sysadmin.recovery
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4