Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/make

[James Chacon <jmc%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 08:55:28PM -0000, r.o.s.s wrote:
> >
> > >Log Message:
> > >Simplify build, no functional changes.
> >
> > Since you were touching just about every file, wouldn't it have been 
> > better to perhaps re-org the includes and have make.h or something
> > define a simple __RCSID() ?
> 
> It's not quite that simple, the define also controls cdefs.h and
> although it could have been structured to move the stupid __RCSID()
> down below make.h that would also have involved touching every file,
> and multiple edits where there are repeated tests of the define.
> 
> IMHO, cdefs.h and __RCSID() are refinements for native code whose
> negatives greatly outweigh the vague positives when interpreted in
> the context of the very first required bootstrapping tool.
> 
> What I would really like to do is remove that fluff entirely from
> make(1), but I limited myself to just redoing the original MAKE_BOOTSTRAP
> edits with improvements.
> 
> > BTW, I'm about to commit a change for posix compliance that I wanted 
> > to get pulled up to 2.0, is this commit going to interfere with 
> > that (pullup)?  Ie. does this commit now also need to pulled up to 2.0?
> 
> No, and no.  You may or may not be able to directly apply your patch
> to 2.0 but I'm sure any changes to get it to cleanly apply to 2.0 sources
> will be trivial. Remember, pullups aren't supposed to say "pull up everything"
> or "sync with current" but identify specific delta's or provide patch(1) 
> input.

Yes, but with intervening changes (especially ones that change code layout)
often times "pullup rev X" doesn't work directly and requires a patch.

Avoiding that if possible is always nice (though in this case pulling this
change up also wouldn't be all that bothersome)

James