RE: [GRASS-dev] compile directions

GRASS GIS GRASS GIS developer
1

Yeah, but no directions on when to do each. A conservative approach would be to do make distclean just to be sure. But would that ever cause problems?

Jerry

---- Original message ----

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:27:26 -0400
From: "Patton, Eric" <epatton@nrcan.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: [GRASS-dev] compile directions
To: "William Kyngesburye" <kyngchaos@kyngchaos.com>, "Gerald Nelson" <gnelson@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>

There are instructions in the INSTALL file distributed with Grass on the difference between the two:

make clean - delete all files created by 'make'
make distclean - 'make clean' + delete all files created by './configure'

~ Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: grass-dev-bounces@grass.itc.it on behalf of William Kyngesburye
Sent: Fri 8/24/2007 1:17 PM
To: Gerald Nelson
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] compile directions

Actually, I'm a little guilty, though I often ask others when
troubleshooting. I usually just run "make clean". If I see a change
in configure or a makefile, then I'll run "make distclean".
Occassionally I'll make distclean anyways, to be safe.

I don't know how valid my method is - assuming that only configure
and makefile changes require a distclean. But something in the build
instructions would probably be good.

On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Gerald Nelson wrote:

There have been lots of emails recently about compiling issues, and
one common thread is a question about whether you ran 'make
distclean' first.

Is there any reason NOT to always run make distclean? Should it be
part of the standard directions?

-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

Gerald Nelson
Professor, Dept. of Agricultural and Consumer Economics
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
office: 217-333-6465
cell: 217-390-7888
315 Mumford Hall
1301 W. Gregory
Urbana, IL 61801

2

It seems to me that make distclean takes into account all possible modifications to makefiles, libraries, etc. I can't remember the number of times on the mailing list that folks have solved weird compile errors by make distclean after multiple failed attempts using make clean. I'm no authority on the subject, however.

FWIW, I make distclean after daily cvs updates to 6.3, and have never encountered any problems.

~ Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Nelson [mailto:gnelson@uiuc.edu]
Sent: Fri 8/24/2007 1:37 PM
To: Patton, Eric; William Kyngesburye
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Subject: RE: [GRASS-dev] compile directions

Yeah, but no directions on when to do each. A conservative approach would be to do make distclean just to be sure. But would that ever cause problems?

Jerry

---- Original message ----

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:27:26 -0400
From: "Patton, Eric" <epatton@nrcan.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: [GRASS-dev] compile directions
To: "William Kyngesburye" <kyngchaos@kyngchaos.com>, "Gerald Nelson" <gnelson@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>

There are instructions in the INSTALL file distributed with Grass on the difference between the two:

make clean - delete all files created by 'make'
make distclean - 'make clean' + delete all files created by './configure'

~ Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: grass-dev-bounces@grass.itc.it on behalf of William Kyngesburye
Sent: Fri 8/24/2007 1:17 PM
To: Gerald Nelson
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] compile directions

Actually, I'm a little guilty, though I often ask others when
troubleshooting. I usually just run "make clean". If I see a change
in configure or a makefile, then I'll run "make distclean".
Occassionally I'll make distclean anyways, to be safe.

I don't know how valid my method is - assuming that only configure
and makefile changes require a distclean. But something in the build
instructions would probably be good.

On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Gerald Nelson wrote:

There have been lots of emails recently about compiling issues, and
one common thread is a question about whether you ran 'make
distclean' first.

Is there any reason NOT to always run make distclean? Should it be
part of the standard directions?

-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

Gerald Nelson
Professor, Dept. of Agricultural and Consumer Economics
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
office: 217-333-6465
cell: 217-390-7888
315 Mumford Hall
1301 W. Gregory
Urbana, IL 61801

3

Patton, Eric wrote:

It seems to me that make distclean takes into account all possible
modifications to makefiles, libraries, etc. I can't remember the
number of times on the mailing list that folks have solved weird
compile errors by make distclean after multiple failed attempts
using make clean. I'm no authority on the subject, however.

"make distclean" should restore the source tree to its original
condition, as if you had deleted it then run "cvs checkout ...".

FWIW, I make distclean after daily cvs updates to 6.3, and have
never encountered any problems.

It's better to run it *before* "cvs update". I use:

  make distclean &> /dev/null
  cvs update 2>&1 | fgrep -v 'cvs server: Updating '

If you get any lines beginning with a "?" at the start of the output,
those correspond to files which CVS doesn't know about. You should
determine how they got there and whether they might interfere with
anything.

If you run "cvs update" without having run "make distclean" first, the
output will be swamped with entries for OBJ.<arch> etc, making any
real issues harder to spot.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>