On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 08:51:49 Peter Stuge wrote: > Daniel Stenberg wrote: > > I disagree about it being an abuse. > > I'm actually surprised. > > Compilers compile and build systems manage what files get compiled. > I hope you agree that the C preprocessor is not a build system.
While I agree on that, it does not imply that your solution is any better. > > I rather defer all the build stuff on build other systems than my > > own to others > > Yes and no. If a build system is to be supported by the project then > it should really include the complete range of functionality. This > isn't the case for *any* of the build systems in libssh2 besides > autotools. All others are hardcoded to OpenSSL. > > > then I like being able to help them as much as possible and > > I think it's important to consider what the project as a whole > outputs, rather than what individual contributors propose. > > Discussions such as these can and often do lead to improvements, > but all improvements need time. > > > using Makefile.inc for getting the files to build is one such way. > > No way. It's really just nonsense. The above is just expressing your _personal_ preference. Your commit removes 11 lines and inserts 25 lines, which does not convince me you are simplifying things. The complexity of your solution is close to O(m*n), where 'm' is the number of build systems and 'n' is the number of crypto backends we support. Your argument that currently n=1 for most of the build systems is just a short-term argument despite you are presenting your contribution as a long-term solution. > > I vote for reverting d512b25f (although it doesn't do that cleanly > > right now) +1 Kamil _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
