Hi,
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 at 16:23 +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 18. Februar 2007 00:28 schrieb Phil Sutter:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:55:15PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > There are different kinds of portabilities. Having a known base
> > > to build upon is sometimes better than working around quirks in
> > > every other version of the tools available.
> >
> > Yes, this is a point indeed. At least because there is another tendency
> > amongst us, trying to keep both ADK in general and especially maintainer
> > stuff (e.g. package makefiles) as simple as possible. So highly
> > complicated, but as well portable makefiles are even worse than ones
> > with lots of requirements.
> >
> > > (Conditional build is also possible, i.e. build it only if it's not yet
> > > there.)
> >
> > Hey, wouldn't this be an idea? I think checkouts won't increase
> > dramatically, and we can just remove it if GNU make 3.81 has become
> > standard.
> >
> > This thread needs more opinions and dis-/aggreements!
>
> You ask for opinions, here is mine:
>
> Either stay with make 3.80 as dependency or automaticly build a newer version
> on those systems which only have 3.80 (or even an older version). But please
> don't ask the user for a make upgrade on their host systems. Users don't want
> to upgrade coreutils like make, gcc, and so on.
That's the point. I do not think we need this dependency, because
everything works fine in trunk with make 3.80.
Forget about the minor issue, we have a lot other more important
problems with ADK right now. Kernel module dependencies, Kernel
config overhead, info.nfo, ...
bye
Waldemar
--
don't open your wrt, free it
http://www.freewrt.org
_______________________________________________
freewrt-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
