Skip to content

Conversation

@iwamatsu
Copy link

@iwamatsu iwamatsu commented Aug 2, 2012

This provides the binary of rebar. However, I think that using the rebar binary
installed in the system in many cases.
When rebar is already installed in system, this change that rebar of System use
installed. When not provided, use the binary provide in source.

Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu [email protected]

This provides the binary of rebar. However, I think that using the rebar binary
installed in the system in many cases.
When rebar is already installed in system, this change that rebar of System use
installed. When not provided, use the binary provide in source.

Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would change this to

+REBAR_BIN ?= $(shell which rebar || echo ./rebar)

And three lines below are not necessary anymore. Moreover, we can specify the rebar binary with the environment variable.

@iwamatsu
Copy link
Author

iwamatsu commented Oct 3, 2012

Thanks you for your comment.
Your method looks better.

@kostis
Copy link
Collaborator

kostis commented Oct 18, 2012

I know it has been long since this was submitted, but can I please ask for some more "motivation" why this pull request is worthwhile to include? For example, have you experienced any errors with the rebar included in PropEr?

Note that PropEr does not just include a copy of rebar in its code base but instead includes a patched rebar, which e.g. shuts off some warnings when running eunit. Why is it preferable to use a rebar that does not do what exactly PropEr wants it to do?

@dch
Copy link
Contributor

dch commented Oct 27, 2012

@kostis, if I have proper as a dependency in another rebar project I would prefer to be able to ensure I have a consistent version of rebar throughout my build tool. So I'd prefer if the eunit issue can be addressed by the rebar project upstream, and then @motiejus fix could go in. Shipping rebar in every project is like including make or autotools - it doesn't make sense to me.

kostis added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 15, 2019
This set of changes allows PropEr to be built using rebar3 instead of
its own (patched) rebar version.  Besides being more modern, this
allows for easier integration of PropEr in code bases that use it as
a dependency.

Note that PropEr's version of rebar is still used for running the unit
tests, mainly due to being able to shut off more warnings than when
using rebar3.  However, this only affects PropEr developers, not users.

Addresses #204 and a request by propcheck.

Obsoletes #44 and most of #168.
@kostis
Copy link
Collaborator

kostis commented Oct 15, 2019

After a bit less than 7 years, I finally created a pull request (#211) that does the above for building PropEr but using rebar3 instead of rebar. This will be merged soon.

Thanks for your contribution! As they say, "Good things come to those who wait." :-)

@kostis
Copy link
Collaborator

kostis commented Oct 16, 2019

#211 is now merged into master, to I am closing this.

@kostis kostis closed this Oct 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants