On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:51:19PM -0800, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> (1) using '.if ... make( ...' for anything, ever, is broken.  yes, i
> know that some things already use it, but they should be considered
> broken.  (what happens if you say 'make includes all install' or
> similar?)
	well, then I would consider make to be broken.  make a b c
should be the same as make a && make b && make c.

> (2) the existing implementation is kind of nice in several ways:
> 	* simplicity
> 	* ease of maintenance.  Need an include file, add it,
	true.

> (3) it'd be interesting to see how the time wasted by extra work in
> 'make includes' relates to other chunks of the build process.  i'd
> rather waste a relatively small amount of time doing the build to get
> a known-good-and-maintainable build process.  This only impacts
	I think I'll withdraw my proposal.  I hadn't tested this since
I put a faster disk in my machine: the time saved is less than 2% of the
total build time now.  as you said, not worth it given the hassle of
maintaining it.

eric