Re: [PATCH] Makefile: check that tcl/tk is installed

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:31:13PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Perhaps the "else" part of the above should become a bit more
careful, something along the lines of...

    else
            MSGFMT ?= msgfmt
-           ifneq ($(shell $(MSGFMT) --tcl -l C -d . /dev/null 2>/dev/null; echo $$?),0)
-                   MSGFMT := $(TCL_PATH) po/po2msg.sh
-           endif
+           MSGFMT_DRYRUN = --tcl -l C -d . /dev/null 2>/dev/null
+            ifneq ($(shell $(MSGFMT) $(MSGFMT_DRYRUN); echo $$?),0)
+               ifneq ($(shell $(TCL_PATH) po/po2msg.sh $(MSGFMT_DRYRUN); echo $$?),0)
+                    MSGFMT := $(TCL_PATH) po/po2msg.sh
+               else
+                   $(error "no usable msgfmt to build gitk; set NO_TCLTK perhaps?")
+               endif
            endif
    endif

Actually, at this point, I think the suggestion should primarily be
to install either msgfmt or tclsh; offering another choice to set
NO_TCLTK is OK, but it should be secondary, as the fact that the
make utility is running this recipe is a sign that the builder wants
to build gitk/git-gui.

I think that's the rub, though. We hit this code path by default, so
it's _not_ a sign that the builder cares about gitk.

I do agree that outlining "install one of these or disable tcl" as the
options is a good idea, though.

Whether the builder wants to run the result on the same box is a
separate and irrelevant matter.  Once built and installed, a box
without "wish" may not be able to run the result, but installing it
after the fact will fix it without need to rebuild anything.

Yeah, this side-steps the "other half" of the issue that Christian's
patch addresses, which seems like the more controversial part (I don't
have a strong opinion myself, though).

-Peff