Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Matt Rice]

On 2007-02-16 22:21:35 -0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden> 
wrote:

> 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 GNUstep.sh is a pure shell script. ;-)
> > >
> > > It's a machine-independent program that can be in a machine- 
> > > independent
> > > directory
> > > 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 GNUstep.sh can still set up the achitecture specific
> > environment variables
> > for 'step-config' to then use.
> > non-flattened configurations must then continue sourcing GNUstep.sh.
>
> 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.

then we can add to step-config an option to set a specific variable 
from the command line
similar to pkg-config's --define-variable=foo=bar which sets 'foo' to 
'bar'.

then gnustep-make figures this out and sends it LIBRARY_COMBO, etc, 
etc that when running step-config.

It seems kindof odd, but make's $(shell) function doesn't  pick up 
variables exported from inside the makefile
so that route is out.