I usually build Python directly in my source repository (the directory
containing the configure script).  Accordingly, I have .o files scattered
throughout my sandbox.

Today I decided to build --with-pydebug, so I created a debug directory,
then ran ../configure from within that directory, giving the arguments
I wanted.  When I ran make it croaked with a link error linking pgen.
The linker complained that tokenizer_pgen.o and pgenmain.o weren't found.

Messing around with make -d I figured out that when make ran it
concluded that Parser/pgenmain.o didn't need to be rebuilt.  It thought
that ../Parser/pgenmain.o satisfied the dependency for Parser/pgenmain.o.
I don't know if this is a problem with GNU make's VPATH processing or
with the dependency specification in Python's makefile.

I can work around the problem by avoiding builds directly in my sandbox
but it would be nice if this worked.

(I'm experiencing a sense of deja vu.  Perhaps I've reported this problem
sometime in the dim, dark past, but I can't find anything searching for
either "VPATH" or "makefile".)

I'll close this unless anyone shows some interest in it.

Mark, the proper way of closing an issue is to test first if the problem
still exists.

Fascinating, three days from the second birthday, the OP isn't interested, nobody else is interested but it can't be closed.  Clearly I'm missing something.  Shall we leave this issue until it gets to it's 10th birthday?

Yes, if it's still a problem.

Mark, instead of using sarcasm, it would be more productive to research
this bug. Skip has given a hint that the search terms "VPATH" or "Makefile"
might be relevant. Searching for "VPATH" immediately yields issue 1613,
which looks very similar:

gcc: Parser/pgenmain.o: No such file or directory


Why don't you try to find out if they are related? It is an excellent
opportunity to get acquainted with the Python build process.

Stefan, I'm not interested in researching something that has been available for others to research for two years, I don't understand why they aren't interested and I don't care.  If noone can be bothered with an issue why leave it to rot, why not simply close it?  Why is this issue different to others that I have set to pending and then after a couple of weeks closed without having a single comment back?

2010/8/8 Mark Lawrence <report@bugs.python.org>:
>
> Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment:
>
> Stefan, I'm not interested in researching something that has been available for others to research for two years, I don't understand why they aren't interested and I don't care.  If noone can be bothered with an issue why leave it to rot, why not simply close it?  Why is this issue different to others that I have set to pending and then after a couple of weeks closed without having a single comment back?

It's not different from others. Bugs should stay open until they are
resolved in some way. Closing a bug for lack of input is only
acceptable when the information needed is to clarify the problem from
the OP.

If VPATH is intended to work without doing `make distclean` first
in the root directory, then this is still valid. I'm not sure if
this is the case though (see also issue 1613).



cd py3k/
./configure --with-pydebug
make

mkdir debug
cd debug/
../configure --with-pydebug
make
...
gcc: Parser/tokenizer_pgen.o: No such file or directory
gcc: Parser/printgrammar.o: No such file or directory
gcc: Parser/pgenmain.o: No such file or directory
make: *** [Parser/pgen] Error 1


cd ../
make distclean
cd debug/
make # (works now)