From owner-freebsd-current Sun Oct 4 14:03:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27328 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:03:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles320.castles.com [208.214.167.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27312 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:03:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06658; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199810042108.OAA06658@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: dmaddox@scsn.net cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shouldn't 'make includes' install stand.h? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:32:39 -0000." <19981004133239.A309@scsn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:08:42 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > Shouldn't a 'make -DCLOBBER includes' result in a _complete_ set > > > of includes? Are there other includes than stand.h that don't > > > get installed by 'make includes'? > > > > No. "Make includes" installs random header files. libstand.h is > > installed at the same time libstand is; if you install just the former, > > you're going to die in the link phase when you can't find the latter. > > 'Random header files'? Ok, if you say so, but so far, the only "standard" > component of /usr/include I've managed to identify as _not_ installed by > 'make includes' is stand.h. This seems counterintuitive to me... libstand.h is not a "standard" component of /usr/include, any more than eg. zlib.h. > Your point about installing the header without the lib is valid, but it > seems to me that this is applicable to just about all of the includes, in one > way or another. Maybe there shouldn't be a 'make includes' target at all? 'make includes' theoretically exists as a catchall to install headers not associated with any particular item. It's commonly abused to avoid the chicken-and-egg problem that occurs when you try to build a tool that consumes an interface to something else that hasn't been built yet. > I'm not trying to be combative here; this is not a religious issue to > me... The current behavior just seems to me to violate POLA. Only if you have misapprehensions about what 'make includes' does. It seems mostly to trip up people with such misapprehensions. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message