Jim Meyering <[email protected]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Reuben Thomas <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> >>>> Coreutils doesn't use the gnulib maintainer-makefile module, I believe, >>>> so at minimum it would need a patch that made it use maint.mk from >>>> gnulib. >>> >>> Or it could use maintainer-makefile, unless there's some reason why not? >> >> Right, I think coreutils should use maintainer-makefile. > > ;-) > In the long run, of course. > But coreutils certainly can't do that now. > I'll be happy to switch as soon as doing so is not a step backwards.
Understood. I think taking most of coreutils maint.mk and putting that into gnulib is something we should consider. I suspect all the non-coreutils-related projects can cope with having to review maint.mk for anything that doesn't work. > I'm using coreutils' maint.mk in 3 or 4 other projects, > nearly verbatim. As such, I'm reluctant to remove rules, since > that would mean migrating them out to each cfg.mk, which is maintained > separately, and thus harder to keep in sync. Besides, unwanted rules > are easy to disable. I don't follow -- if you maintain your copies of maint.mk which are similar but not identical in some way today, can't you use the same strategy for cfg.mk? However, ideally I think all of what's in coreutils maint.mk should go into gnulib maint.mk. So the stuff you need to maintain in cfg.mk will be minimal and project-specific. If it isn't project specific, it is something that should go into gnulib's maint.mk. /Simon
