before we get carried away with naming discussions ...
Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with
target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are
* have some sort of composite of targets that other targets can add
themselves to
* have some special construct that has a depends list similar to
target. targets can depend on such a construct and add themselves
to the depends list (the current code base).
* allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of any other
target
* allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of targets that
in some way mark themselves as being open for such extensions
* no target-group like construct at all
* something completely different?
What is your preference?
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
