On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:20:50 -0500, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at 
finestructure.net> wrote:
> > Your commit message has that flag word of "also" in it, and as it turns
> > out, the removal of Makefile.config from the repository has actually
> > happened already. But that was easy enough to fix.
> I was thinking that the removal of the Makefile.config from the repo
> went together with the new auto-generation of that file from configure
> script.  Do you think they still should have been separate patches?

No, it was fine. It's just funny to me how often that word "also" in a
commit message seems to end up being a predictor for things later, (like
this case where half of a patch is already implemented, or much worse,
how often a bisect lands on a commit that makes multiple changes).

So I was really just expressing amusement at seeing it again.

> > > +# option parsing
> > > +for option; do
> > > +    if [ "${option%=*}" = '--prefix' ] ; then
> > > + PREFIX="${option#*=}"
> > > +    fi
> > > +done
> > 
> > I've gone ahead and committed that now. Then I noticed that we should
> > really use ${option%%=*} to support the case of an option value
> > containing an '=' character. So I fixed that.
> Ah, good catch.  Sorry about that.  

No worries. I was just impressed at the tiny amount of code needed for
the parsing here, so ended up looking closer to understand it.

> Autoconf terrifies me, so I agree I'm quite happy with the simple
> configure script we have right now.  If it gets the job done without
> having to deal with autoconf then that's great in my book.

Cool. At least not everyone thinks I'm crazy then. That's
encouraging. :-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to