Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
On 17.03.2013 12:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
I'm afraid it's too late for that.
Sorry for the time you wasted - you should have asked first.
Klaus
On 03/17/13 13:00, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.03.2013 12:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
I'm afraid it's too late for that.
I do not understand why it should be too late. 2.0 is not out yet.
But if they really cannot have readable names, at least I would not provide a default, but let the makefile issue a message that they must be set (as I suggested in the other thread).
Carsten.
On 17.03.2013 18:00, Carsten Koch wrote:
On 03/17/13 13:00, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.03.2013 12:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
I'm afraid it's too late for that.
I do not understand why it should be too late. 2.0 is not out yet.
But we're in the final testing phase. Besides, Ville's patch also touched the Makefiles of plugins - and plugin authors and distribution managers react very intense when they have to modify their files ;-).
But if they really cannot have readable names, at least I would not provide a default, but let the makefile issue a message that they must be set (as I suggested in the other thread).
Sorry, no more changes for version 2.0. Just bugfixes, if anything is really broken.
Klaus
Am Sonntag, den 17.03.2013, 18:06 +0100 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
On 17.03.2013 18:00, Carsten Koch wrote:
On 03/17/13 13:00, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.03.2013 12:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
I'm afraid it's too late for that.
I do not understand why it should be too late. 2.0 is not out yet.
But we're in the final testing phase. Besides, Ville's patch also touched the Makefiles of plugins - and plugin authors and distribution managers react very intense when they have to modify their files ;-).
If I am not mistaken, Ville’s issue was that the names were not clear. Could a comment be added to the Makefile what the meaning is then. That should not break anything.
[…]
Thanks,
Paul
On 20.03.2013 18:02, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 17.03.2013, 18:06 +0100 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
On 17.03.2013 18:00, Carsten Koch wrote:
On 03/17/13 13:00, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.03.2013 12:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Should probably have spoken earlier, but is there any particular reason for the ugly and hard to read Makefile variable names LCLBLD and PLGCFG? I suppose they're short for LOCALBUILD and PLUGINCONFIG, but why do they have to be short for anything, it's not like we're running out of space for their names anywhere, is it? Besides, I don't think LCLBLD describes what its effects are very well, INPLACE would sounds better to me.
The ship may already have sailed for plgcfg in vdr.pc as it's being used by many plugin Makefiles already, but I believe the attached patches should be safe for 2.0.0.
I'm afraid it's too late for that.
I do not understand why it should be too late. 2.0 is not out yet.
But we're in the final testing phase. Besides, Ville's patch also touched the Makefiles of plugins - and plugin authors and distribution managers react very intense when they have to modify their files ;-).
If I am not mistaken, Ville’s issue was that the names were not clear. Could a comment be added to the Makefile what the meaning is then. That should not break anything.
Something like this?
# Use 'make LCLBLD=1' to build locale and plugin files under the source directory: ifdef LCLBLD ...
# Use this if you want to have a central place where you configure compile time # parameters for plugins: #PLGCFG = $(CONFDIR)/plugins.mk
Klaus
Carsten Koch wrote:
But if they really cannot have readable names, at least I would not provide a default, but let the makefile issue a message that they must be set (as I suggested in the other thread).
They don't have to be set, so why should the Makefile issue a message?
Yours
Manuel
-
Carsten Koch -
Klaus Schmidinger -
Manuel Reimer -
Paul Menzel -
Ville Skyttä