Subject: Re: xpkgwedge vs. USE_X11 vs. ?
To: Tim Rightnour <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/01/1998 09:50:08
On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Tim Rightnour wrote:
: This isn't of course.. allways the case.. tcsh 6.04 used imake to build, and if
: you think about it, it works nicely..
It had a "Makefile.dist" that could be modified if imake was not available.
(I remember modifying it many a time.... :)
: And hardcoding a makefile to get around wierd logic in our pkg tree
: seems counterproductive to me. The mechanics are there to automate the
: build and make it easy.. why must we complexify the pkg creation process
: so much?
: What I don't want to end up with here, is a pkg system that is a wonder to
: behold, but can't be comprehended by anyone.
That's precisely why I believe what I said before: if it uses imake and X,
okay, but if it should be useable by non-X systems, it _cannot_ use imake.
Adding an extra level of abstraction for "imake without X" is both adding
more confusion and Wrong, as it removes the possibility of a non-X system
using the package.
AFAIK, almost all of the non-X software that used Imake also provided an
alternative modifiable Makefile for no-imake systems. At least, every
package I ran into did.
-- Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Bus. firstname.lastname@example.org)