Re: Bug#88029: allow rules file to be non-makefile
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that
> > they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file
> > previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard by
> > allowing e.g. makefiles.
>
> Exactly, and both cases would be bad. There's absolutely no good reason to
> remove the options that the current choice gives us.
There's absolutely no good reason not to add the option that other choices
would give us.
> This is a loss of flexibility solely for the sake of change. This is evil.
As if make was the only flexible choice.
> > It's basically a choice between conservatively sticking to the standard, and
> > allowing some innovation within the standard.
>
> Enforcing make allows innovation. Dropping that requirement disallows a
> large number of possible innovations. Don't do it.
Not enforcing make allows innoviation. Having that requirement disallows a
large number of possible innovations. Do it.
Don't you see the circularity in this? :)
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: