On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND <sylw...@legeek.net> wrote: >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 >> Sylvain BERTRAND <sylw...@legeek.net> wrote: >> >>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all >>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is >>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to >>> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for >>> small project SDKs, period. >> >> The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building >more >> or less complex software-projects. >> Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a >> makefile to accomodate to common practice. >> I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really >> stupid and a waste of time to do it. >> If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start >> ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. >> >>> I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small >>> (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). >>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my >>> needs. >> >> Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? > >I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them >"irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) > >This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too >annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile >to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. > >>> We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. >>> Nothing new here... >> >> I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the >> knee. > >Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU >GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them, >and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm >not bothered to work on some components which are not protected >by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time. >You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are >shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who >"forgot" to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected >code to their users. > >Are you one of those?
Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
