[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that > they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file > previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard by > allowing e.g. makefiles. Exactly, and both cases would be bad. There's absolutely no good reason to remove the options that the current choice gives us. This is a loss of flexibility solely for the sake of change. This is evil. > It's basically a choice between conservatively sticking to the standard, and > allowing some innovation within the standard. Enforcing make allows innovation. Dropping that requirement disallows a large number of possible innovations. Don't do it. MfG Kai
