lvqcl.mail wrote:> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even keep it around. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+la at mega-nerd.com> wrote:> lvqcl.mail wrote: > >> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box. > > Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even > keep it around.Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools. I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have (which other projects lack). Would be nice to keep it IMHO. Best regards Riggs
On 12/08/16 12:24 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:> On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+la at mega-nerd.com> wrote: >> lvqcl.mail wrote: >> >>> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box. >> >> Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even >> keep it around. > > Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing > an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools. > I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have > (which other projects lack). > Would be nice to keep it IMHO. >I agree. Here it would require a lot of tweaking but it is still a good beginning point for someone who needs a plain makefile. Even if slightly broken, it should be kept as a template. Dave