[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[Francois BERENGER]

I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.

Regards,
Francois.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: opam.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1547 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/attachments/20140828/0857a8a0/attachment.bin>

[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[Julia Lawall]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Francois BERENGER wrote:

> I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.

Could you explain?  I am not at all familiar with the code.

thanks,
julia

[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[Francois BERENGER]

On 08/28/2014 04:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Francois BERENGER wrote:
>
>> I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.
>
> Could you explain?  I am not at all familiar with the code.

Rather than removing things one by one in [...]/share/coccinelle/*
you can remove directly [...]/share/coccinelle .

This is more robust since some of the things in [...]/share/coccinelle/*
are not installed by all make targets but were nonetheless listed
by the uninstall target (which would fail with an exit 1, which is a 
problem when you package things for opam).

-- 
Regards,
Francois.

[Cocci] patch for c's Makefile

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.

Should the build specification be corrected instead of an "old" generated Make file?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/282fdcd007ab47a0684a2b7add0f88181d4f32da/configure.ac#L1

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] patch for c's Makefile

[Francois BERENGER]

On 08/28/2014 05:15 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.
>
> Should the build specification be corrected instead of an "old" generated Make file?
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/282fdcd007ab47a0684a2b7add0f88181d4f32da/configure.ac#L1

Probably. I don't know m4 though.

-- 
Regards,
Francois.

[Cocci] Improvements for the build specification?

[SF Markus Elfring]

> Probably. I don't know m4 though.

I know this macro programming language to some degree.

Unfortunately, further improvements on the affected build specification are
blocked by Julia so far. How do you find the chances to change such a situation?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Improvements for the build specification?

[Francois BERENGER]

On 08/28/2014 06:01 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Probably. I don't know m4 though.
>
> I know this macro programming language to some degree.
>
> Unfortunately, further improvements on the affected build specification are
> blocked by Julia so far. How do you find the chances to change such a situation?

I was just reporting upstream some patch I had to introduce in order
to package coccinelle for OPAM so that 'make uninstall' always return
success.

I was also kind of probing the activity of the ML and liveliness
of the coccinelle community, which I always do when starting to use
a new open source tool. ;)

Coccinelle looks great, I am amazed.

PS: http://opam.ocaml.org/

-- 
Regards,
Francois.

[Cocci] Improvements for the build specification?

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I was just reporting upstream some patch I had to introduce in order to package
> coccinelle for OPAM so that 'make uninstall' always return success.

Would you dare to extend your knowledge about the software "Autotools" and
"automake" besides package management for OCaml?
How do you think about to find any more developers who try to fiddle with M4
programming?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[Julia Lawall]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Francois BERENGER wrote:

> On 08/28/2014 04:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Francois BERENGER wrote:
> > 
> > > I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.
> > 
> > Could you explain?  I am not at all familiar with the code.
> 
> Rather than removing things one by one in [...]/share/coccinelle/*
> you can remove directly [...]/share/coccinelle .
> 
> This is more robust since some of the things in [...]/share/coccinelle/*
> are not installed by all make targets but were nonetheless listed
> by the uninstall target (which would fail with an exit 1, which is a problem
> when you package things for opam).

OK, what worries me is that what you suggest seems rather obvious, but I 
don't know why it was not originally done that way.  I will try to find 
out.

julia

[Cocci] patch for coccinelle's Makefile

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I think the uninstall target can be made much simpler and robust.

How do think about to combine also the affected file deletion commands
into fewer calls with longer parameter lists if your prefer still to
adjust a Make file directly?
(I imagine that improvements for other build scripts would be more
useful, wouldn't it?)

Regards,
Markus