Development plan -- time to move forward

[Keith Packard]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 20:34 -0400, Kevin E Martin wrote:
> n the monolithic tree.
> 
> 3. Should we use AM_CONFIG_HEADER() in the initial release or wait until
>    afterwards?
> 
>    Proposed answer: If the AM_CONFIG_HEADER([config.h]) macro is used,
>    then we will be required to add "#include <config.h>" to the source
>    files.  Since we are sharing the source code between the modular and
>    monolithic trees for the 6.9/7.0 release, then those changes will
>    also appear in the monolithic release, where they do no harm, but are
>    not needed.  However, if we do not use this macro, then the changes
>    to the shared source code will be significantly reduced.  Therefore,
>    we should not use the AM_CONFIG_HEADER() macro in the initial
>    release.  Note that once the initial modular release has shipped, we
>    can easily add the macro and associated source changes to only the
>    modular tree.

I strongly disagree with this position.  Not using AM_CONFIG_HEADER
places implicit unmarked dependencies on the Makefile for all source
builds, and also obscures even further the compile lines used to build
the software.

The traditional method for using AM_CONFIG_HEADER is

#ifdef USE_CONFIG_H
#include <config.h>
#endif

This allows people to build with non-automake based build systems while
still letting us ensure that dependency information is accurate for our
uses.

Adding this to every source file can be automated and doesn't harm the
monolithic tree at all.

-keith

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/attachments/20050423/e12588aa/attachment.pgp