Re: Obsolete building in source dir?

[Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:28:14PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 14:08, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > If we print out 'creating build directory in <target>-build...
> > > configuring in <target>-build' then it's no-longer 'behind their back'.
> > 
> > Assuming the user catches that line in the heaping gobs of output
> > configure produces (especially when builds are automated).  Better to
> > say:

This is a strawman argument.

You are proposing the existence of a user who

    - is building a compiler from scratch
    - is automating the build (!)
    - gives a flying rat's ass about the location of the build directory

but who also

    - has never read the installation instructions
    - isn't on the mailing lists
    - doesn't log the output of configure and
    - can't read config.log

I refuse to believe that such a user exists until you provide concrete
evidence.


> Why does the user have to KNOW this?  Why would they care?  We don't
> assume that they have to know a lot of other things.  All they want to
> do is build the compiler so they can install it.  I haven't seen a
> single reason why they should care that this is done in a subdirectory
> of the source rather than in the sources themselves.

Ditto.  I've never heard any argument why this should matter to the end
user in the slightest.

They don't care that, for example, our source code comments are written in
grammatically proper English.  /We/ care.  Likewise, changing how in-srcdir
builds work isn't being done for the user's convenience.  It's for /us/.


-- 
<The_Vulture> evilgeek: actually it's <: and :>, <% and %>
<evilgeek> oh, right. digraphs are always happy