Patrick, On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Patrick Roland Gansterer <par...@paroga.com> wrote: > (...) but there a some parts which are not good for a "general buildsystem". > E.g. INCLUDE(Options${PORT}) doesn't support different ports well, since > ports share some parts. (There some other points too; I'll post them on the > bug)
The idea of a Options${PORT} file is to put only the port-specific checks and defaults there. They'll be different for each and every port, and even if they're roughly the same, I don't think they should be inside the same file, for two reasons: 1) it eases the review process whenever one tries to update port-specific rules: the changes to ${PORT} files shouldn't break any other port; and 2) it keeps the main files cleaner. Regarding (2): In the beginning, the EFL port would use autotools (as used by the GTK+ port), but despite its syntax not helping maintain a clean file, having lots of conditionals for the EFL and GTK+ port made that build system, which was already difficult to maintain, a lot worse. This is akin to having port-specific stuff into platform-independent files, by #ifdefing things around. Sometimes it is needed, but I think this should be avoided as much as possible. Cheers, -- Leandro _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev