> From skip at mojam.com Wed Jan 07 11:53:13 2004 > Envelope-to: claird at phaseit.net > From: Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> > . > . > . > Andrew> We therefore have to have flags that will force HP to compile > Andrew> for some common generic processor. > Skip> Can you submit a patch with these changes? > Cameron> You're losing me, Skip. What, to you, would constitute "a > Cameron> patch"? > Probably a patch to configure.in. We set lots of platform- or OS-specific > compilation flags there. > Skip Clearly. I want to take this opportunity, though, to understand attitude-intent-design, so that any patches in which I'm involved will not merely imitate what (perhaps mistakenly) exists, but will promote long-term usability and maintainability. So: when Mr. MacKeith describes his situation, do those with the most configure expertise regard it as a platform-specific instance of a cross- platform condition, or ... well, I just think there's a lot more to know to get configure.in right. Uh-oh; I just realized there's another possibility. Maybe we're all more-or-less equally expert with the Python build process, because all that anyone does is local imitation, without aspira- tion to a higher design. If so, that's no criticism of any one; it would reflect well on Python's robustness that it hasn't needed more deliberation or structure. I think it's a good time for it, now, however.
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