On 6 March 2012 19:56, Michael Stahl <mstahl@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/03/12 18:12, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 19:08 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
Don't see why we shouldn't maintain our own patched copy of gmake the
same way we maintain patched copies of other components.
There was a long discussion about this at the ESC :-) and I
disagree
with the decision, am still suffering slower builds from it on all my
machines, but don't much feel like re-opening it personally.
uhm, wasn't one of the reasons for picking GNU make that "it's standard,
and available everywhere, and we won't get stuck in the situation where
we have to maintain our own build tool" ?
That could be a reason but when now turns out that also GNU make sucks,
why we couldn't change our mind ?
From what I read here on the dev ML I understood it's ~impossible to get
our patches upstream so there is no other option than build again our
own make.
It's small and builds nicely (I think), so hopefully that's easy.
The problem with patched 3.81 being faster than 3.82 can be hopefully
also solved.
Of course there can be also real disadvantages, I just can't see them.
Anyway, don't take me too much seriously, just my 2 cents.
All the best,
Matus
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
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.