On 14-02-11 13:28:25, Markus Teich wrote:
>Nick wrote:
>> I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
>> and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
>> for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
>> Needless to say I think 'include' is a perfectly reasonable feature
>> to use, and it evidently works everywhere that people care about.
>
>Heyho,
>
>Regarding the include config.mk used in various suckless projects: What is the
>benefit? If a user needs to adapt it to his system, he effectively has to edit a
>file. Would there be a problem if this file would be the Makefile instead of the
>config.mk file?
>
>Regards,
>Markus
>
To me this is a clean, user-facing “interface”. Yes, the user still
edits a Makefile of sorts, but he gets the clear message - this is the
stuff you can tune by just editing some variables, no need to
investigate the actual build process if this suffices, no risk of
breaking the build by messing up Makefile indents or some other
weirdness etc.
regards,
Tom
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 13:33:51 CET