Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Debugging version of C library
Message-ID: <xnvi2ttywg.fsf@delorie.com>
Organization: DJ Delorie/DJGPP Support
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:35:27 GMT
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970702105448 DOT 27453A-100000 AT is>
Lines: 27
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
> > Another gripe: Would it be too much trouble to use one big Makefile instead
> > of that silly `rmake' stuff?
>           ^^^^^ 
> Please do not use words like ``silly'' for work done by somebody else.
> `rmake' (as most of the library) was written by DJ Delorie, and I
> trust him that he wrote that for a very good reason.  If you want to
> know why, please ask him.

Here is some background to my choice of process:

* I didn't want to have to remember to add an object to the makefiles
  more than once.  I add the source to the makefile in that directory,
  and the rest of the system just knows what to do with it.

* I didn't want to forget to add a new directory to the toplevel
  makefile (I've done it before).

* If a source or directory is *deleted* the system needs to know to
  do the right thing.

* Dependencies are hard to get right, especially when multiple
  directories are involved.

* I wanted the makefile to be in with the sources so that I'd remember
  to update it, and it would be easy to verify that it's correct.