On Wednesday 29 of June 2011, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:56:42 +0200
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen proposals for any other
kinds of extensions to the gmake copy.
yet.
So what? Are we in a kindergarten? If we say that no such extensions will be
added to the copy, they won't be added. And even if, if there would be an
extension that we'd decide would be worth the incompatibility, then it would
be worth it. I still fail to see any realistic catastrophic scenario, even
that would be nowhere near the dmake case. If our copy of GNU Make ends up
being the only maintained copy, the FOSS world has a much bigger problem than
LO requiring its own build tool again.
Also: This does not even have to be done intentionally -- some
performance hack might very well also accidentally fix an build
breaker.
The world is not perfect. I think we all know. What is your point?
--
Lubos Lunak
l.lunak@suse.cz
Context
- Re: [Libreoffice] patch for make to help in gbuild debugging (continued)
Re: [Libreoffice] patch for make to help in gbuild debugging · Thorsten Behrens
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.