> We're using includes in the Apache 2.0 makefiles. I'm not sure whether this > is going to make Apache 2.0 less portable or not. There haven't been any > issues yet, though. > > (I think the makefile organization came from PHP; assuming that is as > portable as Apache 1.3, then makefile includes are pretty darn portable) > > IMO, I say "start using makefile includes" and see who screams. VPATH is not > portable, though. The difference is that Apache and PHP only need to be portable to server-class machines. Python also runs on (1) very ancient hardware; (2) some Cray-class machines; (3) non-Unix hardware with enough Unix emulation to be able to run the configure script (I believe the BeOS port falls in this category, and of course cygwin). Call me conservative, --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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