Support rebar binary in system #44

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants

iwamatsu commented Aug 2, 2012

This provides the binary of rebar. However, I think that using the rebar binary
installed in the system in many cases.
When rebar is already installed in system, this change that rebar of System use
installed. When not provided, use the binary provide in source.

Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwamatsu@nigauri.org

Nobuhiro Iwamatsu Support rebar binary in system
This provides the binary of rebar. However, I think that using the rebar binary
installed in the system in many cases.
When rebar is already installed in system, this change that rebar of System use
installed. When not provided, use the binary provide in source.

Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@nigauri.org>
ae1c650

@Motiejus Motiejus commented on the diff Sep 11, 2012

@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@
# Author: Manolis Papadakis
# Description: Instructions for make
+REBAR_BIN = $(shell which rebar)
@Motiejus

Motiejus Sep 11, 2012

Contributor

I would change this to

+REBAR_BIN ?= $(shell which rebar || echo ./rebar)

And three lines below are not necessary anymore. Moreover, we can specify the rebar binary with the environment variable.

iwamatsu commented Oct 3, 2012

Thanks you for your comment.
Your method looks better.

Collaborator

kostis commented Oct 18, 2012

I know it has been long since this was submitted, but can I please ask for some more "motivation" why this pull request is worthwhile to include? For example, have you experienced any errors with the rebar included in PropEr?

Note that PropEr does not just include a copy of rebar in its code base but instead includes a patched rebar, which e.g. shuts off some warnings when running eunit. Why is it preferable to use a rebar that does not do what exactly PropEr wants it to do?

Contributor

dch commented Oct 27, 2012

@kostis, if I have proper as a dependency in another rebar project I would prefer to be able to ensure I have a consistent version of rebar throughout my build tool. So I'd prefer if the eunit issue can be addressed by the rebar project upstream, and then @Motiejus fix could go in. Shipping rebar in every project is like including make or autotools - it doesn't make sense to me.

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