+1 sounds great to me.
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Christopher Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> It occurs to me that in the newt world, there is one entity that is not
> like the others: targets. Everything else--pacakges, projects, compiler
> definitions--all share the same structure: a .yml file and some source files
> enclosed in a directory. Targets, on the other hand, are tables stored
> in a sqlite database. I was wondering if it would be better if targets
> had the same structure as everything else.
>
> I am envisioning a directory called "targets". Each subdirectory in the
> targets directory would contain an individual target definition. I
> think this change would provide several benefits:
>
> 1. Targets could be shared and downloaded using the newt package
> manager.
>
> 2. Target definitions would be stored as yml files. This would bestow a
> simple means of reading, modifying, and copying targets, the ability
> to add comments next to target variables, and all the other benefits
> inherent in human-readable configuration files.
>
> 3. A target's directory could contain target-specific header files.
>
> The last point is what spurred me to write this email. I was thinking
> about the best way to allow compile-time configuration of packages.
> Modifying settings at the project or package level is not precise enough
> for some uses. There are some cases where settings need to be
> configured at the target level. The newt tool allows you to specify
> compiler flags for each target (via the "cflags" variable), but this
> becomes unwieldy when you need to configure hundreds of settings.
>
> Anyway, just a thought. Feel free to chime in with your own :).
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
