In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 07/22/20
at 01:06 AM, "Lewis" <email@example.com> said:
>Speaking of which... Are there enough loose makefiles floating around the
> repo? Egad. It seems that every language has a makefile for something
>which could have been done with a single file a level or two above which
>was not NLV-specific. Oh, well. It's a process.
This is exactly how the xwp repo does NLVs. It's a style I prefer. A
project that insists on doing everything from a single top-level makefile
is probably a project I'm not terribly interested in working on.
When I need to make a small change to some file in some subdirectory, I
prefer to be able to drop into the directory and type make and be done
with it. I don't care to be forced to wait for a top-level make file to
figure out that 99% of the code does not need to be rebuilt.
>Steve, any comment before I dive into this?
I'm not too picky on how things are named, although I agree that
could shortened to audioconv.dlg with not loss of information.
When laying this kind of stuff out my focus tends to be to try to make
sure the layout will still make sense after I've been away from the
project for 6 months or so.
I also try to not reinvent the wheel. No layout is perfect and the
existing layout worked for Chris.
>I mean, if it's in the /nl directory, why add _nl to the filename? Again,
> it's a process, I guess. We should move slowly and get a build going
>first, before adding more makefile changes.
That would be my choice too. We are still looking for source files and we
can't build working binaries from what we have.