[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:21:35 +0000

On 17 Feb 2007, at 02:11, Matt Rice wrote:

On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero <address@hidden> wrote:
Matt, thanks for your comments.

I understand your desire to centralize the configuration, but there
is an actual reason why is a pure shell script. ;-)

It's a machine-independent program that can be in a machine- independent
and that can then be used to bootstrap the fat binary system. :-)

Yes, my take is, people using weird configurations should not mind doing
weird things can still set up the achitecture specific
environment variables
for 'step-config' to then use.
non-flattened configurations must then continue sourcing

I feel very strongly that that is the wrong philosophy ... while we obviously need to devote most attention to the needs of the majority, we should also try to make things easy for the minorities, and changes that make things harder for the minorities (or needlessly different for different groups) really need very good justification. I'm also pretty dismayed by the cavalier attitude towards portability (cross platform support) that I've seen in this thread.

While the initial points raised about previously missing features in gnustep-make (needing to set a variable to locate the make system and the lack of a facility to report on the presence of libraries for use in autoconf/configure) were quite valid, the desire to solve them in ways which don't benefit all developers/setups equally seems very much mistaken. Where something needs improving, let's do it for everyone.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]