On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:28:25 +0100
Markus Teich <markus.teich_AT_stusta.mhn.de> wrote:
> 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?
Regarding the config.mk, I don't see the benefit, either. If I didn't
know the concept how suckless-projects are organized in regard to their
makefiles, I would look at the Makefile first and probably not notice
the config.mk.
Regarding including in general, take projects like 9base into
consideration, where each subdirectory includes standard build
procedures.
I myself prefer a centralized make-system over a decentralized one with
includes, but I'm sure there are people around here who can give good
reasons for decentralizing this.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 11:41:43 CET