Should winemaker be able to handle this
fgouget at free.fr
Sat Apr 3 17:43:24 CST 2004
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> For (B), the generation of the Makefile is a one time thing.
> After first generation, it should be properly maintained
> manually. We can not pretend to autoguess any Makefile right,
> but the trivial ones, and encouraging regeneration like this
> is just dangerous. So for this case we don't need those
> options either, the user can simply edit the resulting Makefile
> and add them in there just as easily.
I agree on the A/B distinction. However even in the B case we need these
options for those cases where winemaker generates a whole lot of
makefiles. For instance when I test winemaker on the 'Programming
Windows 98' it generates 146 makefiles. Eventhough it's supposed to be a
one-time thing (which it has unfortunately not been in the past but
hopefully this is behind us now), it's a major pain to go through 146
Makefiles to add/remove some settings that you know are needed
everywhere... like -DSTRICT.
Once winemaker gets used on even larger projects, which is the eventual
goal, it may end up generating even more Makefiles and the options will
be needed to get and initial result that needs as little modification as
Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
Demander si un ordinateur peut penser revient \xE0 demander
si un sous-marin peut nager.
More information about the wine-devel