Let me protest a bit about that idea. I love to compile full-blown blender right off the bat, having all it's options enabled, with all deps and plugins. This is something very desirable, to have FULL version of everything (and not thinking "maybe I missed something"). So, I understand the need of shortening compilation process by devs, as it is saving time. But why not to reverse this proposal then?
Let's do this instead: - lets define a new limited target for make, say 'make barebone' or 'make-light' or whatever. It is already doable by hand, by -D definitions and, as Sergey said, most devs already scripted it. So what's the problem? Let devs use this way of barebone compilation, not the end-users. As as an end user (and as a wannabe-dev) I would love to have all features enabled and accessible by default, without any hassle and without the need of additional configuration steps. Even make-"something" is non-standard and should be avoided for casual users. Devs can use all sort of "make-o-magick" commands, leaving users undisturbed and letting them compiling all things by default. Just my two cents, peace! regards Pio Piotr Polski Kurs Blendera: http://polskikursblendera.pl, YT: /user/piotao?feature=guide FB: /polskikursblendera TW: /piotao 2014-11-13 17:25 GMT+01:00 Campbell Barton <ideasma...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Thomas Dinges <blen...@dingto.org> wrote: > > You'd simply have to type in another command, e.g. "make-full" instead > > of "make". > > > > Come on guys. ;) > > Initial proposal suggests we have a `make release` > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
