On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:42:29 +0200, Roman Joost <romanofski@xxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:56:28PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote:> > [...] solutions> Yeah - I thought about this as well. Sven proposed (correct me if I'm> wrong) that every (or most) image directory contains a Makefile which> keeps care of "building", copying, installing etc. So the installation> will scale better with the amount of images ... Basically, that would be like in the gimp source tree: every directoryhas its own Makefile and manages only its own files (or calls make inits sub-directories). The disadvantage is that you have more Makefiles to maintain. Theadvantages are that each Makefile has to take care of less files (sono more "argument list too long") and you can also run "make" or"make install" in a sub-directory without having to rebuild the wholetree. This is useful if you have modified one file and you want tosee how the output looks like with this modified file without havingto run "make install" from the top-level directory. -Raphaël_______________________________________________Gimp-docs mailing listGimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
