Hi Allen,
Allen Bierbaum wrote:
> Thanks. That worked great. The cycle is now removed. I really like
> the idea of how common.libs.in centralizes all the dependency
> information. When Dirk and I first create the build.info files I don't
> think we realized how distributed the source for any one library was in
> the tree. Now that I see how the files have worked out I would really
> like to centralize the dependency information in a single location. It
> shouldn't be hard to do. I may not have time this week to get to it,
> but I will create a ticket to remind myself to get it done.
>
I don't like the fully centralized version very much, as it makes it
hard to dynamically add and remove stuff. The old system was half and
half: the central one covered some pieces, but you could always add new
stuff anywhere in the tree. The disadvantage was that you needed to
explicitly list all directories that were to be included, of which we
have a lot more now than we used to.
What is the problem with the current setup? You ave multiple build.info
files for a lib, but do you need to replicate information in multiple
places?
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
