[PD-dev] general makefile question

[IOhannes zmölnig]

On 12/02/2010 09:40 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Bryan Jurish wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I'm misreading this thread, but wasn't there something like:
>>> something like 'PD_LDFLAGS="-Wl,--export-dynamic  -shared $(LDFLAGS)"'
>>> and then consequently using $(PD_LDFLAGS) in the linking stage?

yes, this would be my suggestion.

> 
> Sorry for the complaint, the bug in question cost me a full day of time
> re-doing really unfun stuff.  That's a full day of my free, unpaid
> time.  Code has bugs, therefore it needs testing, that's all I'm saying.

sure.
however, in order to properly test, it would be great to have a test
defined (even if it only was an instruction like, apply your changes to
library X (because this uses feature A) and library Y (using feature A &
B), then run
$ make
$ make clean
$ make install
$ make uninstall
$ make install DESTDIR="/tmp"
$ make uninstall DESTDIR="/tmp"
$ make dist
and see if all this succeeds.

doing a "thorough test" on the template Makefile without having a test
defined, is probably taking more time then a full day (and yes, i do a
lot of work in my free unpaid time as well)

> 
> So I say take the template Makefile and go nuts with it, fix all the
> bugs add features, but do it in a branch, thoroughly test it, and then
> we take it from there.

i switched the build-system of iem/syslog to my modded version of the
template Makefile and afaict, "everything" works:

https://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-data/trunk/externals/iem/syslog/Makefile

"everything" excludes the 'uninstall' target (non-existant it seems) and
an unnecessary complicated procedure to install into
 /usr/lib/pd/extra
(though i won't change that for now)


sidenote: in this makefile i am using ALL_*FLAGS rather than PD_*FLAGS;
i have no opinion whatsoever on the exact prefix of the variables; ALL_*
is "suggested" on the Gnu standards page, and PD_* being more "Pd" than
"Pd-external".

probably "PDEXT_" would be a proper prefix.


>>
>> @IOhannes: sorry about my bogus "+=" suggestion; posted without testing
>> it first :-/

np.
it's what i would have suggested myself as well, just to find out that
it didn't work.
i prefer one person to find out and communicate, to two persons having
to go through all steps to find out.



mgfasd
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20101203/ba4f65f2/attachment.pgp>