From: Sven M. H. <pe...@gm...> - 2001-02-17 13:47:14
|
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:36:17AM -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > However, pulling the source file lists out would directly eliminate? > > > the need for that double maintanence work. That's what I meant. > > > > > > Do you think we could do that? I would of course do the modification work, > > > on a seperate branch. You and Keith would just have to agree to use couple of > > > seperate file for specifying the source lists. Or do you see a problem there? > > > > I think the sources for Mesa 3.5 are quickly settling down and I don't > > think there will be any big changes anymore (Keith?). If that's the > > case, do you still want to make a seperate sources file? > > I removed a file 't_vb_materials.c' yesterday. > > I plan on adding a bunch of templates to make driver writing easier (you've > already seen a few in the tnl/ directory; they really belong in a directory of > their own, I think). > > Otherwise, I think that's it for me. I can't judge how much flux there will be in the source file lists, however if that's all for the not-too-distant future I guess it'll be unnecessary. Also just using *.[ch] seems to work pretty well, since the directory organization is clean (i.e. if there's only one source list var in the Makefile.am, *.[ch] is safe to assume). So, for now we'll stick with the seperate maintanence of Makefile.X11 and Makefile.am. -Sven -- "Would the All-Seeing Eye please look in my direction?" [ KeyID........: 0xC297FEAB ] [ Fingerprint..: FEA5 0F93 7320 3F39 66A5 AED3 073F 2D5F C297 FEAB ] |