Bram Moolenaar wrote: > Sorry, but I don't see why a decent build script would require the > source to be packaged in a specific way. Yes, it would be simpler if > they all use the same convention, but you cannot depend on that. A descent designed code tries not to duplicate stuff unnescessarily... ;-) It is true that we cannot count on this but why not try to make those few (I've got 300+ packages, only vim have this thing) that differs to change to same convention?
> Sources are packaged in many different ways, not everybody follows the > GNU religion. You also don't know if there is a configure script or > not, and whether the Makefile is for BSD make or GNU make. This is not only GNU religion. I'm using all sorts of opensource packages and, GNU or other, they all behave same. Or have I just been lucky? The configuring of the package (autoconf, makefile variables, menuconfig alá kernel, busybox or whatever) is a completely different matter and is not what we talk about here. As a side note, in all those packages I use, those rules can also be common to quite a good extent. > As I mentioned, the FreeBSD ports system has a few variables you can set > if the structure of the archive is using a strict naming method. > It's just one or two extra lines in the build script. Ok, but if we really don't need those one or two extra lines of code if we follow some common style, why have it in first place? Best regards, Per --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
