| 1 |
On Saturday, June 05, 2010 09:16:29 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:56:38 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 09:17:00 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:16:12 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > use emake then and leverage make's implicit rules. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > The implicit make rules are less universal and -- in the fact -- |
| 8 |
> > > pretty poor. They're strictly make-dependant, which reduces the |
| 9 |
> > > amount of control over their behavior. In my opinion, if we should |
| 10 |
> > > ever use such behavior, it should be rather technical |
| 11 |
> > > implementation of the functions I'm proposing instead of inline use. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > ebuilds requires GNU make which means the implicit rules are |
| 14 |
> > "universal". not that i really know what you're talking about. the |
| 15 |
> > rules are also clearly documented and support all the proper flags we |
| 16 |
> > currently support. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Ok, if we can surely assume 'emake' will always call GNU Make, then I |
| 19 |
> agree with your solution and withdraw my ideas. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i'm not saying `emake` covers all solutions you proposed, just that the base |
| 22 |
usage isnt nearly as bleak. there are some cases where having a wrapper |
| 23 |
around emake would be useful (such as compiling multiple files or linking |
| 24 |
things in). so if you wanted to slap something together, we can look at it |
| 25 |
further. |
| 26 |
-mike |
Archives