Re: [Gnu-arch-users] configs?

[Robert Anderson]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 01:57, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> 
> On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 01:27 US/Pacific, Robert Anderson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 00:35, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> >>
> >>    Is there a reason configs are required to be in the ``configs''
> >> directory?  It seems like any file in that format should be 
> >> sufficient.
> >>
> >>    In fact, is there a benefit to having a more than one per project?
> >
> > Consider a fairly generic set of Makefiles useful for building more 
> > than
> > one project.  You'd want configs for each project that that set of
> > Makefiles can build.  As one example.
> 
>       I'm not sure I follow this example.  Are you suggesting having a 
> project that is made up of Makefiles and references other projects that 
> those makefiles can build?  Either I'm not understanding that (which is 
> likely since I haven't slept nearly enough this week) or it seems a 
> little contrived.

It's not at all "contrived," whatever that is supposed to mean.  It's
how package-framework work.  It's how I work.

>       The way I imagine this stuff being most used is in a project that 
> makes use of a library type project.  I've got a C-based application 
> that pulls in a couple other C-based projects, for example.  I don't 
> see why I'd need to have more than one set of configs in a single 
> branch pulling in different sets of sub-projects.

Because you build more than one variant of your code?  One that pulls in
a gui "library" for the gui version, and one that pulls in a cli
"library" for the cli version.  There's infinite possibilities.

  Shouldn't a single 
> sub-project set definition be adequate for any given branch of a 
> project?

Well you _could_ branch your wrapper project once for every config you'd
like to use, if that's what _you_ want.  But forcing a user to do that
is a limitation and not a feature.  Maybe I don't want to "get" from
different branches to build different configs.  In fact, I don't.

Bob