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

pull luke-jr wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from luke-jr:separate_utils changing 4 files +28 −9

luke-jr commented at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2015: member

No description provided.
laanwj commented at 12:17 PM on January 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.
laanwj added the label Build system on Jan 8, 2015
luke-jr commented at 12:21 PM on January 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.
luke-jr force-pushed on Jan 8, 2015
luke-jr force-pushed on Jan 8, 2015
configure: Make it possible to build only one of bitcoin-cli or bitcoin-tx 2b66034f19
Merge branch 'separate_utils-0.10.x' into separate_utils
Conflicts: qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.sh
27f1e33f04
luke-jr force-pushed on Jan 8, 2015
laanwj commented at 11:09 AM on April 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.
jgarzik commented at 12:11 PM on April 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.
luke-jr commented at 5:27 PM on April 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?
laanwj commented at 7:17 AM on April 8, 2015: member

@luke-jr Ah yes, I missed that default so I wondered how it worked. @theuni mind taking a look here?
laanwj commented at 3:03 PM on June 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.
laanwj closed this on Jun 12, 2015
luke-jr commented at 2:43 PM on March 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.
laanwj commented at 2:04 PM on March 3, 2016: member

Yes, you mean bitcoin-tx doesn't need libevent.
MarcoFalke referenced this in commit b88dd7c2db on Sep 27, 2018
pravblockc referenced this in commit 5d1533d938 on Jul 28, 2021
MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors

Labels

Linked (view graph)

#12246 Bugfix: Only run bitcoin-tx tests when bitcoin-tx is enabled