Re: ccache and distcc, take two

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 01:07 +0200, Kinkie wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 00:03 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > ons 2006-08-16 klockan 01:36 +0200 skrev Kinkie:
> > > Hi all,
> > > this is a second attempt at getting autoconf/automake to
> > understand
> > > our desire to get builds faster, and this attempt works for me.
> >
> > What I don't quite get is why we should need to have configure look
> > for
> > ccache? It's trivial to do this outside configure, and many
> > installations of ccache already sets up the system in such manner that
> > ccache is used by default without the need to do anything.
>
> Not all do, and the main reason to me is convenience (admittedly, it
> should be on by default to get the maximum gain).

I just don't really see the point of having this in the package. Making
ccache trivial to use is imho more of a business for ccache, and a
trivial thing to do at that level. Ideally I'd like to se an interface
like the following

  ccache make install

to have the compile run with ccache. And it's a trivial thing for ccache
to provide by simply adding a wrapper directory to PATH and then invoke
make.

This borders on selection of which compiler to use, which isn't
something there should be configure flags for, so why have configure
flags for ccache?

Now your configure magic is nothing magical as such and there is nothing
technically stopping this. But I question adding yet another configure
option, especially one which neither has anything to do with the package
as such (results the same) and which can trivially be done externally,
either globally on the whole system, for a specific user or per
invocation.

I just don't see it your task to make ccache easier. It's already
trivial to use if you ask me. So I only see the negative aspects of
having yet more configure options which people have to understand..

Reards
Henrik
Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 07:12:26 MDT