[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
aesthetics for defining makes versus sub-makes
From: |
Robert P. J. Day |
Subject: |
aesthetics for defining makes versus sub-makes |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:11:34 -0400 (EDT) |
a question regarding design -- i have a sizable, recursive project in
which i define a target at pretty much every level, "package", which
represents bundling everything in this directory and below into a package
for distribution.
ideally, any directory at any level can be asked to "package" itself
and, since this works recursively, each directory then has to consider two
possibilities:
1) it's the top level directory for the "package" target, which means it
has to do extra work to, say, set up the initial package before content
starts to be added by itself and its subdirectories, or
2) it's a sub-directory, which means it realizes that it just has to *add*
content to a package already under construction.
one solution, that i'm using now, is to define two targets for each
makefile -- package and subpackage -- with obvious semantics.
the other solution is to check MAKELEVEL and change the packaging based
on that, of course.
do people have strong opinions on this either way? is one approach
aesthetically better than the other?
rday
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- aesthetics for defining makes versus sub-makes,
Robert P. J. Day <=