A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-October/009756.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal -- makefile patches and scripts to generate python RPMs

[Python-Dev] Proposal -- makefile patches and scripts to generate python RPMs [Python-Dev] Proposal -- makefile patches and scripts to generate python RPMsMartin v. Loewis martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:44:52 +0200
> The main thing a specfile generator can accomplish is to automate
> the generation of the file list so that (for example) when we add a
> new library module the specfile doesn't have to be hand-edited.

That sounds similar to the rationale for having automatically
generated dependency files for make, e.g. by gcc -MM. Many projects
use this as a convenience, and it kind-of works. However, I still like
it better to have dependencies explicitly recorded in the
Makefiles. That requires more discipline, but is easier to understand,
and the behaviour is more reproducable.

So given the option of using an existing hand-written spec file, and
having some magic generate one for me, I'd always use the hand-written
one. The magic is only good if there is no hand-written one.

Regards,
Martin




RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4