On 8/3/06, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm about to commit a change to Compile to use type=<recipe_type>
> instead of is_<recipe_type>=yes.
I assume you have some facility for backwards-compatibility in there?
I hope so, too :-)
> Before I commit I have some questions. The variable name; as it is
> inside the recipe, "type" should be clear enough, but as the word
> "type" is a reserved word, it can be used as a variable but I don't
> like it, maybe "is_type" or "recipe_type" is better?
My vote would be for recipe_type. It's less ambiguous, and won't get
highlighted by vim :)
Yes, I prefer recipe_type too.
> When I'm at it, why is one type called "compileprogram" and not
> "autoconf" or "configure", which is, imo, more natural.
That's a really good question. Unless someone has an objection, I
also vote for
recipe_type=autoconf
The problem is that not all 'is_compileprogram=yes' recipes are really
autoconf based. Many have hand-written configure scripts, which would
lead to somethink like "recipe_type=configure", I think. However, it
sounds better to my ears "recipe_type=autoconf".
--
Lucas
powered by /dev/dsp
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
