From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: read configuration earlier
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 07:57:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260730115745.GB1871609@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh5lhm82g.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 09:10:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This is a scary patch because its correctness depends on what is
> between lines 780-1050. It turns out that this now lets config.mak*
> to set quite a lot of symbols to affect the outcome:
>
> * PROGRAM_OBJS, BUILT_INS, TEST_BUILTIN_OBJS
> * WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES
> * SHELL_PATH
> * PERL_PATH
> * PYTHON_PATH
> * NO_RUST
> * DEBUG
> * uname_S?????
> * SPARSE_FLAGS
> * SPATCH_INCLUDE_FLAGS
Yes, though to some degree config.mak can already manipulate those after
the fact. There are other breakages, though (see the CFLAGS one I showed
elsewhere in the thread).
> Especially curious is that currently there is this bit:
>
> ifeq ($(uname_S),Windows)
> RUST_LIB_NAME = gitcore.lib
> else
> RUST_LIB_NAME = libgitcore.a
> endif
>
> that comes WAY BEFORE config.mak.uname is included. If the location
> to include these files matter, then how could this bit have been
> working? I have no idea and since I have no access to Windows
> development box so I wouldn't know.
Yeah, that seems totally wrong to me. Likewise this bit right above it:
ifndef NO_RUST
ifdef DEBUG
RUST_BUILD_CONFIG = debug
else
RUST_BUILD_CONFIG = release
endif
has the same problem brian is fixing for BREAKING_CHANGES. It will work
for "make NO_RUST=1", but not if you put NO_RUST into config.mak. That
said, I don't know why that NO_RUST check is there at all. It is not a
problem to set a flag that nobody looks at. So it may be a bug without a
visible effect. ;)
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-30 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-28 0:46 Failing tests with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES brian m. carlson
2026-07-28 1:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-07-28 13:31 ` Phillip Wood
2026-07-28 13:55 ` Jeff King
2026-07-28 14:36 ` [PATCH 0/2] fix serial tests without/with breaking-changes Jeff King
2026-07-28 14:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] t0014: factor out choice of deprecated commands Jeff King
2026-07-28 15:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-07-28 14:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] t0014: generate deprecated command names dynamically Jeff King
2026-07-28 16:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-07-28 16:19 ` Jeff King
2026-07-28 21:12 ` brian m. carlson
2026-07-29 15:25 ` Failing tests with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES Phillip Wood
2026-07-29 22:59 ` [PATCH] Makefile: read configuration earlier brian m. carlson
2026-07-30 4:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-07-30 11:57 ` Jeff King [this message]
2026-07-30 11:54 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260730115745.GB1871609@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox