On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:00:50AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 06:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: >> > It might be nicer, but could get messy when you consider all the corner >> > cases. >> > >> > True, and the mess can be contained in a macro. Reusing the design for >> > ChangeLog is worth a shot. >> > Not to mention the script brings a mess of it's own in the build. It >> > introduces multiple points of failure. >> > Finding a home for the mess is not obvious. >> >> But the reason we put the ChangeLog mess in a macro is because it >> would be used across all the modules. If it's only being used here, >> then you might as well put it in the Makefile where it can be clean >> instead of a shell variable that's substituted. Unless we think this >> is going to be used in a lot places. > > I don't see why not. People are going to copy it and/or patch it in > anyway, and as with ChangeLog, it'll just get out of hand and we'll wish > we'd have used a macro in the first place.
True. This is probably more me thinking a variable substituted from a shell script is the wrong way to distribute this and wishing you could install 3rd party automake rules. -- Dan _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
