From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Org Build System (aka Makefile) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:56:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87628k56hd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y5mkrca2.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ipcs3smd.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <871ujf5i7g.fsf@gnu.org> <874no8dxik.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87k3x4rlb2.fsf@gmx.com> <87zk5zdery.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87boifrkyl.fsf@gmx.com> <874no6zz0v.fsf@gnu.org> <877gt2oami.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r4r9xfd2.fsf@gnu.org> <87mx1w11ll.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1ilU-0004rh-Pn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:56:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1ilT-0005Tw-SF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:56:24 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:49141) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1ilT-0005Tl-Ld for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:56:23 -0400 Received: by wibhn17 with SMTP id hn17so1390729wib.12 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:56:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mx1w11ll.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:55:50 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Achim, it is not a matter of taking over the build system, it is a matter of making it simple for the users and useful for the developers. At least two of the core developers here want `make compile-single' and don't want to edit local.mk to do so. The reverts I did were just for this to be the case. If a majority of developers want a _COMPILE_ variable or whatever, I'll happily let you implement it. The decision I took of getting rid of the elint targets is perhaps more controversial, but I think elint targets are more gadgets than anything else right now, and potentially disconcerting ones. You sound a bit angry at me, which I'm sorry to read. FWIW, I 100% acknowledge your sense of rigor and completeness and the way you can handle complex stuff -- but as a maintainer, I also try to focus on simplicity. Thanks, -- Bastien