Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > > > My point is, in order to maintain a good separation of concern, I > > should not use this knowledge. > > I agree. > > > IMHO, there's a need for a well documented "module extension build API" > > accessible from a well known place. > > Sure. > > I'm not really addressing that at the moment, I'm addressing having the > necessary files. Given gnu-make constraints about makefile inclusions, > that requires to have the same layout as the initial source tree, whatever > it is. I'm not sure that dropping all includes would be an easy move, nor > even desirable. > > > > This is more important than to include it in the default installation. > > Well, the point of having an infrastructure if extensions cannot rely it > being there when needed is not clear to me.
Agreed. If we are pushing things out, it seems it is our duty to make it easy for outside things to integrate and build properly. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
