code review 5636050: build: delete make paraphernalia

build: delete make paraphernalia

As a convenience to people working on the tools,
leave Makefiles that invoke the go dist tool appropriately.
They are not used during the build.

[rsc, 2012-02-06 16:49:53]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[bradfitz, 2012-02-06 17:32:55]

LGTM

http://codereview.appspot.com/5636050/diff/4001/src/Make.dist
File src/Make.dist (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5636050/diff/4001/src/Make.dist#newcode10
src/Make.dist:10: install:
all the other tools' Makefiles including this file assume this target is first
in the file, right?  worth commenting, or is this some make convention?

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:01:53]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:32,  <bradfitz@golang.org> wrote:
> all the other tools' Makefiles including this file assume this target is
> first in the file, right?  worth commenting, or is this some make
> convention?

added

# Default target (first).

[niemeyer, 2012-02-06 18:13:39]

http://codereview.appspot.com/5636050/diff/4001/src/version.bash
File src/version.bash (left):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5636050/diff/4001/src/version.bash#oldcode9
src/version.bash:9: if [ -f "$GOROOT/VERSION" -a "$1" != "-save" ]; then
It'd be nice to take the building of dist out of make.bash, so that we can live
without the -save feature being removed here. Otherwise we have a small
chicken/egg issue: the only way to record the VERSION file is to build
everything, or to manually cherry pick the gcc line out.

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:16:43]

I imagined you could

cp VERSION.cache VERSION

or

go tool dist version >VERSION

Russ

[gustavo_niemeyer.net, 2012-02-06 18:20:41]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 16:16, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> I imagined you could
>
> cp VERSION.cache VERSION
>
> or
>
> go tool dist version >VERSION

Exactly. We can only do either if we build dist first, right?

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
http://niemeyer.net/plus
http://niemeyer.net/twitter
http://niemeyer.net/blog

-- I'm not absolutely sure of anything.

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:22:09]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:20, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo@niemeyer.net> wrote:
> Exactly. We can only do either if we build dist first, right?

Yes.  Is that such a hardship?
Even if you have to build it by hand, it's just

cd src/cmd/dist
cc *.c
./a.out version

I do not want to have this functionality in two places,
which means the shell script must go.

Russ

[gustavo_niemeyer.net, 2012-02-06 18:25:17]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 16:22, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:20, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo@niemeyer.net> wrote:
>> Exactly. We can only do either if we build dist first, right?
>
> Yes.  Is that such a hardship?
> Even if you have to build it by hand, it's just
>
> cd src/cmd/dist
> cc *.c
> ./a.out version
>
> I do not want to have this functionality in two places,
> which means the shell script must go.

My suggestion was simply:

"It'd be nice to take the building of dist out of make.bash"

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
http://niemeyer.net/plus
http://niemeyer.net/twitter
http://niemeyer.net/blog

-- I'm not absolutely sure of anything.

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:27:41]

Sorry, I did not read your message carefully enough.
However, what do you suggest?  A new shell script
with those two lines?  I am trying to reduce the number
of scripts, and also the build process for cmd/dist is
intentionally trivial so that it is not problematic to write
it in multiple places (e.g., make.bash and make.bat).

Russ

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:34:27]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=ad8cc8d6a3d5 ***

build: delete make paraphernalia

As a convenience to people working on the tools,
leave Makefiles that invoke the go dist tool appropriately.
They are not used during the build.

R=golang-dev, bradfitz, n13m3y3r, gustavo
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/5636050

[gustavo_niemeyer.net, 2012-02-06 18:34:55]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 16:27, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> Sorry, I did not read your message carefully enough.
> However, what do you suggest?  A new shell script
> with those two lines?  I am trying to reduce the number
> of scripts, and also the build process for cmd/dist is
> intentionally trivial so that it is not problematic to write
> it in multiple places (e.g., make.bash and make.bat).

"make.bash -dist-tool", maybe?

If you feel strongly against it, I can certainly build it by hand.
It's just that the automated builds tend to work for longer with a
slightly better defined interface. I was quite amazed that the daily
package builds were working until last week without any changes since
60.3 (!), just because you kept using the same *.bash convention on
the surface.

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
http://niemeyer.net/plus
http://niemeyer.net/twitter
http://niemeyer.net/blog

-- I'm not absolutely sure of anything.

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:36:04]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:34, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo@niemeyer.net> wrote:
> If you feel strongly against it, I can certainly build it by hand.
> It's just that the automated builds tend to work for longer with a
> slightly better defined interface. I was quite amazed that the daily
> package builds were working until last week without any changes since
> 60.3 (!), just because you kept using the same *.bash convention on
> the surface.

Why did it break last week?

[rsc, 2012-02-06 18:37:09]

ok; 5634048

[gustavo_niemeyer.net, 2012-02-06 18:40:42]

> Why did it break last week?

The build wasn't prepared to deal with the $GOBIN/tool convention properly.

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
http://niemeyer.net/plus
http://niemeyer.net/twitter
http://niemeyer.net/blog

-- I'm not absolutely sure of anything.