I never quite understood why we have binaries output'ing .rst. It's not like the options change daily.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Guillaume Quintard < [email protected]> wrote: > I thought the problem had more to do with ordering build targets and > less with what binary was used, so merging de *_opt2rst may not help. > And I see no real reason for a binary to output rst. > > However, it would greatly improve readability/maintainability (that > could be done using GNU make features, but we'd lose bmake > compatibility), and I'm all for that. > -- > Guillaume Quintard > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -------- > > In message < > cababnj48u7gs7f7ufy5kzfogvnk2jpp3ob7m2hgv2xiqnkj...@mail.gmail.com> > > , Kacper Wysocki writes: > > > >>A discussion with Martin at the VDD concluded that a good way to clean > this up > >>would be to take the opt2rst functions into each binary as an > >>undocumented option. I'll be happy to try that if noone objects. > > > > I think that makes sense. We also have the RST emitting stuff integrated > > in varnishd, and it's not like diskspace is horribly expensive these > days. > > > > -- > > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > > [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by > incompetence. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > varnish-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev >
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
