On 6/7/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roland Mainz writes:
> Peter Memishian wrote:
> > "Uniformly for all AST libraries" isn't really uniform though, since
> > there's nothing inherently different about the AST libraries here -- quite
> > a few of our libraries consist of dozens to hundreds of source files.
>
> Mhhh... what should I do in this case ? AFAIK options are:
> 1. Leave the Makefiles as they are
> 2. Rewrite Makefiles to store all *.o files in a flat layout (e.g.
> single directory) [Needs 5-8days to write, compile and test (largest
> part is to watch my machines to compile the stuff... ;-( )]
> 3. Convert more libraries to the "put object files in subdirs"-solution
> [e.g. you pick victim(s) and I'll switch them over... :-) ]
> 4. Any other ideas ?
I'm with meem on the earlier comment. I see no reason at all to
impose structure on the 'pics' directories in any libraries. It's
just a temporary repository of data, and not something that any human
ever needs to visit. Flat is fine.
Adding logic to other libraries (as in 3) seems unhelpful. It adds
new complexity to solve a non-problem. (I think the fear _might_ be
having two .o names collide. I'd venture to say that if you have
sources with foo/bar.c and blah/bar.c both producing bar.o, then
you've probably got much bigger design and readability problems to
contend with than just the obvious file name problems.)
Leaving these makefiles as they are (as in 1) isn't quite right,
because it means that this one area of the system is different from
the others. That makes it harder to maintain.
So, as originally requested, I agree with (2). I suppose I could be
persuaded
I think Roland asked Peter Memishian for a resolution. It's up to him
to decide whether the innovative (1,3) or the traditional (2)
implementation is the right one.
Irek
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
