New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

configure: Make it possible to build only one of bitcoin-cli or bitcoin-tx #5618

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@luke-jr
Member

luke-jr commented Jan 8, 2015

No description provided.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Jan 8, 2015

Member

IMO this is too granular. No need to micromanage every tool. We had this discussion before, and decided on a rough 'utils' split for anything not GUI or bitcoind.

Edit: see #4690 for previous discussion.

Member

laanwj commented Jan 8, 2015

IMO this is too granular. No need to micromanage every tool. We had this discussion before, and decided on a rough 'utils' split for anything not GUI or bitcoind.

Edit: see #4690 for previous discussion.

@laanwj laanwj added the Build system label Jan 8, 2015

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Jan 8, 2015

Member

This keeps --with[out]-utils, but allows overriding it on a per-utility basis. At the very least, I will need this (either merged or patched in) for Gentoo, which builds each component from source individually.

Member

luke-jr commented Jan 8, 2015

This keeps --with[out]-utils, but allows overriding it on a per-utility basis. At the very least, I will need this (either merged or patched in) for Gentoo, which builds each component from source individually.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Apr 1, 2015

Member

What will --with[out]-utils do after this change? I don't see any code to handle it, but my autotools-fu isn't that great.

This pull has a merge commit in it, you need to get rid of that before it can be merged.

Member

laanwj commented Apr 1, 2015

What will --with[out]-utils do after this change? I don't see any code to handle it, but my autotools-fu isn't that great.

This pull has a merge commit in it, you need to get rid of that before it can be merged.

@jgarzik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jgarzik

jgarzik Apr 1, 2015

Contributor

Seems like NAK territory? We already covered this on IRC. You can do this at the make command line level for just about any project, with no need to complicate configure.

Contributor

jgarzik commented Apr 1, 2015

Seems like NAK territory? We already covered this on IRC. You can do this at the make command line level for just about any project, with no need to complicate configure.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Apr 1, 2015

Member

@laanwj --with[out]-utils continues to function as it did previously, basically controlling the default for the new options.

@jgarzik Is there a way to do make install in that scenario?

Member

luke-jr commented Apr 1, 2015

@laanwj --with[out]-utils continues to function as it did previously, basically controlling the default for the new options.

@jgarzik Is there a way to do make install in that scenario?

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Apr 8, 2015

Member

@luke-jr Ah yes, I missed that default so I wondered how it worked.

@theuni mind taking a look here?

Member

laanwj commented Apr 8, 2015

@luke-jr Ah yes, I missed that default so I wondered how it worked.

@theuni mind taking a look here?

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Jun 12, 2015

Member

There seems to be no interest in this, and earlier consensus on IRC was not to split out the flags this far, so I'm closing this.

I think it can make sense to do this when different utilities have different outside dependency libraries, in which case people may be forced to install dependencies for an utility they're not interested in. But not now.

Member

laanwj commented Jun 12, 2015

There seems to be no interest in this, and earlier consensus on IRC was not to split out the flags this far, so I'm closing this.

I think it can make sense to do this when different utilities have different outside dependency libraries, in which case people may be forced to install dependencies for an utility they're not interested in. But not now.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Mar 1, 2016

Member

I think it can make sense to do this when different utilities have different outside dependency libraries, in which case people may be forced to install dependencies for an utility they're not interested in. But not now.

This is now true FWIW.

Member

luke-jr commented Mar 1, 2016

I think it can make sense to do this when different utilities have different outside dependency libraries, in which case people may be forced to install dependencies for an utility they're not interested in. But not now.

This is now true FWIW.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Mar 3, 2016

Member

Yes, you mean bitcoin-tx doesn't need libevent.

Member

laanwj commented Mar 3, 2016

Yes, you mean bitcoin-tx doesn't need libevent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment