|
From: | Peter Breitenlohner |
Subject: | Re: Implementing notrans_man_MANS |
Date: | Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:27:05 +0100 (CET) |
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Also, the whole thing would probably be a lot more readable if the ?NOTR?/?DOTR? prefixes vanished and were replaced by full rules, wrapped in `if %?NOTRANS_MANS%'. That would be a better name for NOTR, and since it would then only appear a couple of times, it could be longer without pain, too.Do you mean something like: install-man: install-man1 install-notrans-man1 install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES trans_RULES install-notrans-man1: notrans_DEPENDENCIES notrans_RULESNo.
Hi Ralf, what then? Maybe this: if only trans install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES trans_RULES as before, if only notrans install-man1: notrans_DEPENDENCIES notrans_RULES or if both are present install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES notrans_DEPENDENCIES trans_RULES notrans_RULES Pro: much simpler to read Con: duplication of code, harder to maintain or still something else. If so please indicate what. Regards, Peter
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |