On 11 February 2014 14:32, Kurt Van Dijck <dev.k...@vandijck-laurijssen.be> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:41:43AM +0100, FRIGN wrote: >> Regarding the config.mk, I don't see the benefit, either. > > The major benefit I see is: > config.mk is build/host/target specific, Makefile is not. > Makefile goes into versioning, config.mk does not. > Combinining those complicates life.
Exactly. I would even go a bit further than that. When designing my stali Makefile's, I only have a single config.mk in a central place, but many Makefiles for each dependency that include the central config.mk So in theory one config.mk per system should be enough. -Anselm
