Re: [PATCH] Move couple of ifdefs after "include config.mk"
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Dec 3, 2005, 02:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512030323290.19086@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vmzjlkx2f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Hi,
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > > But it is only one line, heck only 20 bytes! > > Hey, don't get so piped up. Timo's patch has already been > merged (thanks, Timo).
In case I did not make it clear: I was not mad or something like that. I only see 3 ways to go about that particular problem:
- maintain your private config.mak - maintain your private Make (shell script) - maintain your private Makefile
I actually did the third way for a while, always merging the newest version. But all of a sudden -- when I was working on another project, which *has* a config.mak -- I had the idea to do the first way.
Actually, the second way falls a little bit short for some of my applications: I sometimes override settings in the first part of the Makefile. This is not possible with Make.
> If you need an override, you have to write down and maintain > those YesPlease _somewhere_ yourself anyway, outside what I > ship. Either "config.mak" or "Make" script.
As mentioned, with the difference that you just can't override some things in Make.
Show 5 quoted lines
> If we have '-include' in the Makefile, we need to make a > decision if what we are adding to the Makefile should be > overridable by that config.mak every time, exactly because > whatever is included becomes part of the Makefile. IOW, that > "only 20 bytes" adds work for the Makefile maintainer.
... which might have another (desired) effect: the structure of the Makefile is better. More organized.
Besides, if you change things in an organized Makefile, you tend to be a little bit more careful where you put things, so the cost of maintaining is not really high (happened to me...).
Hth, Dscho