Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Lubos Lunak wrote:
 It is not another dmake, as I understand it, as you cannot simply nuke our 
dmake copy now and expect things to still work, whereas that would work with 
a gnumake copy as long as that one's extensions were kept to "unimportant" 
features like better debugging or performance. If the extensions are pushed 
upstream, the copy is synced to upstream, and the extensions are not relied 
upon, 

A few too many "ifs" to make me feel comfortable. You end up with
not being able to build without the in-tree gmake in no time - and
bingo, you're coding against a single implementation again.

 During the 3.x times KDE used a home-brewn automake+make replacement (called 
unsermake ... don't ask) that supported a subset of automake+make 
functionality and while people could still build using automake+make if they 
wished so for whatever strange reason, using unsermake was just so much 
better.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make - the proposal at hand
looks more like a superset, not a subset. ;)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Attachment: pgpCmltkc611r.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.