From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] auto-detect changed $prefix in Makefile and properly rebuild to avoid broken install Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:32:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhd2nctjk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <0J0V00LDT7B9BU00@mxout2.netvision.net.il> <7vver3cxlw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Junio C Hamano" , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 14 23:32:51 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fqcya-0000Hg-Tr for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:32:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932330AbWFNVce (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:32:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932362AbWFNVcd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:32:33 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:21214 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932330AbWFNVcd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:32:33 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060614213232.SHTV19284.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:32:32 -0400 To: "Yakov Lerner" In-Reply-To: (Yakov Lerner's message of "Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:30:56 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Yakov Lerner" writes: > I think single GIT-BUILD-FLAGS > is enough, which will cover prefixes, too. Is this OK ? Yes, it was what I was getting at. I think a single GIT-BUILD-FLAGS (or whatever name the list can fight over while I am away) is preferred. > BTW, I think it's useful to add Makefile itself as prerequisite for all *.o, > so change in Makefile will cause recompilations. Shall I include this > into this patch, too ? I've thought about it but in practice this would make things more inconvenient for developers without much gain, so I'd leave it out.