http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260
--- Comment #3 from Peter Hoeg <peterh...@gmail.com> --- I hope it's ok to re-open this FR after so long, but I thought the case wasn't completely closed. Basically, I think that adding the complexity to WPKG itself is a good idea. There are 3 places it can happen: 1) in WPKG itself 2) in the recipes 3) in a wrapper script Now, option 2 makes no sense (far too much duplication) and option 3 adds the extra complexity of having to test and support another component. >From my point of view, the ideal world would be that the recipes themselves are as clean and minimal as possible as it makes it so much easier to maintain and manage. When the recipes become mere wrappers for scripts that do all the heavy lifting, then you are spreading out the work that needs to be done. I know it's easy to ask for stuff without providing patches, but for the future success of this project, I think it is important to make recipe handling as easy (and non-repeated) as possible. Regarding my first example (with the SomeSoftware part), the SomeSoftware part was just to illustrate how it would be used. The idea would of course be to abstract PROGRAM_FILES and PROGRAM_FILES(x86) themselves. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users