tags 576967 pending thanks Hi again,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 09:58:32AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:20:41AM -0400, Anders Kaseorg wrote:How can you suggest that a multiword CC is “abuse” and okay to break, when by your own logic (bug 523642), CDBS “has a well defined current behaviour that users rely on”?Because I am stupid and unworthy? Please do not hide complaints as questions.
Whoops - sorry for biting: I thought you posted to the follow-up bugreport #578303, where I already admitted that it was wrong to not support multiword CC / CXX.
(plus it is wrong of me to bite in any case)The reason I - historically! - considered this not a bug in CDBS was that I could not think of a sane use for multiword CC / CXX.
Anyway, your patch has been applied now (slightly adjusted: I kept cdbs_expand_nondefaultvar as is and made a new convenience variable cdbs_set_nondefaultvar, as expansion and shell-style declaration are separate things.
Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
