On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:48:33 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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 assume the same, of course.
Hehe, ofcourse have this.
This is a big change wrt compatibility, but one I've been thinking
about for a long time now; thanks for bringing this up. Also, this
would imply in incrementing at least the middle number of the Compile
version.
I know it has been on the todo list for _long_ time. The discussion has
been up on the mailing lists a couple of times already.
As I have a backwards-compability section the compability isn't that
affected for users that update Compile. It's the users with old versions
of Compile that try to Compile a new type of recipe, but they will get a
warning that they have an outdated version, so it wouldn't be that
catastrophical.
To minimize incompatibility between the boxes of those tracking CVS
and those who aren't, we'd better make a release right not long after
committing this change. Does the rest of Compile and Scripts look
stable enough for a release now? (recent changes on the dependencies
scheme come to mind.)
Yes, as people with that track CVS might create recipes with the new
specs...
Other thoughts: in the process of deprecating the is_ variables,
MakeRecipe should be changed as well, and maybe even NewVersion could
fix recipes for transitioning to the new style. RecipeLint needs to
add WARN clauses for uses of the "old style".
Nice catch. I'll look into NewVersion.
> 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 :)
recipe_type as well.
Ok, recipe_type it is.
> When I'm at it, why is one type called "compileprogram" and not
> "autoconf" or "configure", which is, imo, more natural.
Historical reasons that do not apply anymore.
That's a really good question. Unless someone has an objection, I
also vote for
recipe_type=autoconf
I don't have a definite vote for this, but I'd be leaning between
autoconf or autotools.
Yes, autotools were among my alternatives but I thought that autoconf were
better and beat the former.
--
/Jonas
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
