[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: Matt Rice
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:45:27 -0800
User-agent: GNUMail (Version 1.2.0)

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 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.

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.

reply via email to

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