[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: declaring sources ...
From: |
NightStrike |
Subject: |
Re: declaring sources ... |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:49:21 -0400 |
On 8/16/07, Jason Curl <address@hidden> wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
> > Why is this not a toggleable option of some sort? Why force a user
> > into a difficult situation that will end up having a kludgey
> > workaround? (like something that auto-generates the makfile.am,
> > bringing the total layers to what.. 4? some script > makefile.am >
> > makefile.in > makefile. ) The justification sounds a little like
> > giving someone a gun but not ever letting him disengage the safety.
> >
> > I understand why using $(wildcard ...) variables is discouraged, as
> > it's not portable. Having automake generate the source file list
> > according to some regular expression is, however, an *extremely*
> > useful advanced tool.
> >
> I don't think it makes sense to have this feature. I have a bunch of
> source files that are conditionally compiled based on the system it's
> building on. Why would I want to compile these on all systems? I don't
> think it warrants (IMO) to increase the complexity of autoconf by adding
> another feature like this one. Instead of saying what I want in a build
> system, I'd have to change it to what I /don't/ want.
>
> For auditing purposes, I'd rather know precisely what's a part of my build.
An option that can be toggled, or an alternative approach to
specifying source files, is just that -- an alternative, an option.
No one would be forcing the use of wildcards. It doesn't work for
your project -- great. But there do exist projects for which it would
have benefits. That's the purpose of offering options to people.