Re: Guile language support in make
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:16:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"):
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
>> >support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things
>> >with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X
>> >libraries, and I think it's more important for make.
>>
>> Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
>> to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so*
>> far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another
>> language could cause significant problems.
>
>This is what build profiles are for.
ACK, and I should have remembered that. Once we get all the bits
needed in stable, it'll help a lot.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
Reply to: