Re: Rebuilding config_h.SH

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, H.Merijn Brand wrote:

> On Mon 03 Jan 2005 20:52, Andrew Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> > > In order to get in sync, I rebuilt config_h.SH with metaconfig, and the
> > > content was the same, but reshuffled (reordered)
> > >
> > > This cause HAS_QUAD to be too far down and also LONGLONG to be used before
> > > defined
> >
> > If I recall correctly, the dependencies in the metaconfig units control
> > the ordering in Configure, but not the ordering in config_h.SH.  The
> > ordering in config_h.SH, I believe, is determined by a simple alphabetical
> > ordering of the units.  That's what the a_dvisory/ directory is for.  I
> > think there are some more details in the metaconfig/README file.
>
> Sounds reasonable, except for the fact that I somehow don't see how and where
> a_dvisory is used, if used at all

It's not explicitly used -- it's just a name that sorts near the
beginning.  To be more explicit:  when the sorting takes place,
the directory name is included along with the unit name, so
that
	a_dvisory/multiarch.U
sorts before
	compline/byteorder.U.

> l1:/pro/3gl/CPAN/metaconfig/U 117 > grep a_dvisory *
> README:a_dvisory/
> README:    The a_dvisory/ directory, then, is a place to put units that need

Yup, that's the only place it's documented.

> I'm contemplating some sort of tsort algorithm for config_h.SH sorting

Yes, something like that would be appropriate -- or use the sorting
already determined by metaconfig for the shell portions of the units.  As
it says in README, however,

	This could be fixed, I suppose, but it wasn't trivial the one
	time I looked.

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		[email protected]