Closed jdoxey closed 4 years ago
During development, I did consider making the make dist
option dependent on make
. That is what is generally done and how it should work. I intentionally did not; because I wanted there to be a clean distinction between doing make
and make dist
instead of everyone simply doing make dist
all the time. I will think about adding the rule anyway; as it's not a good user experience to fail if make dist
is run before make
.
The instructions are a bit bad in that they seem to imply that make dist
is needed for a user trying everything out. Really only make
is needed, and the build components can be run directly without creating a dist.tgz and deploying it elsewhere.
I'm fine with this PR. It is more clear even if a minor change.
There are also still issues with the Makefile process. It doesn't actually properly rebuild various pieces when certain things are changed due to the way other Makefiles are called. The Makefile is serving its purpose but is overly complicated in my opinion and hard to maintain.
Long term I'd like to replace the Makefile process with something else but I don't see any easy way to do that that would be better at this time.
I found some things weren't building properly unless I did a
make
before themake dist
.Sorry, a better pull request would have been if I found the root cause and fixed the dependencies in the Makefile. But, this might help some people until then.