On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:41:43AM +0100, FRIGN wrote: > 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.
The major benefit I see is: config.mk is build/host/target specific, Makefile is not. Makefile goes into versioning, config.mk does not. Combinining those complicates life. > 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. Editing directly in Makefile does work, but complicates long term maintenance. Your argument does not show that using config.mk is a wrong concept, it illustrates that it's not enforced. [...] > > 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. I would using 2 files hardly call 'decentralized'. Things can become worse than that :-) Kurt
