On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:28:25 +0100 Markus Teich <markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de> wrote:
> Heyho, > > Regarding the include config.mk used in various suckless projects: What is the > benefit? If a user needs to adapt it to his system, he effectively has to > edit a > file. Would there be a problem if this file would be the Makefile instead of > the > config.mk file? Regarding the config.mk, I don't see the benefit, either. If I didn't know the concept how suckless-projects are organized in regard to their makefiles, I would look at the Makefile first and probably not notice the config.mk. Regarding including in general, take projects like 9base into consideration, where each subdirectory includes standard build procedures. I myself prefer a centralized make-system over a decentralized one with includes, but I'm sure there are people around here who can give good reasons for decentralizing this. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
