See patch.
Uwe.
Uwe Hermann wrote:
See patch.
Uwe.
What is this good for?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 06:37:58PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Uwe Hermann wrote:
See patch.
Uwe.
What is this good for?
Reducing "greppiness" of the code by dropping 7 or so tiny one-liner files which are unnecessary as we can just as easily put the stuff in the global Makefile.
(I do understand that one Makefile per dir might make sense for _huge_ projects such as the Linux kernel, but I feel it's not really needed for a smaller project such as libpayload).
Uwe.
Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 06:37:58PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Uwe Hermann wrote:
See patch.
Uwe.
What is this good for?
Reducing "greppiness" of the code by dropping 7 or so tiny one-liner files which are unnecessary as we can just as easily put the stuff in the global Makefile.
(I do understand that one Makefile per dir might make sense for _huge_ projects such as the Linux kernel, but I feel it's not really needed for a smaller project such as libpayload).
please refrain from doing this. A local Makefile.inc is a lot less greppy than a big list kept somewhere central, because it is very intuitive where it is and what it is good for. It is pretty much common sense to have a Makefile per sub directory in most software projects
Also, libpayload will continue to grow and evolve.
-
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann