On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 08:43:13PM -0500, Adam Montague wrote:
> Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > oh, and as we have perl in base, why don't you just enable perl by
> > default instead of creating a FLAVOR?
>
> There is no FLAVOR, the subpackage you mean? I wasn't sure if it should
> be in a subpackage (and if so, if there should be a no_perl FLAVOR), or
> if it should just be built and installed no matter what. Here's a patch
> with it just enabled and installed no matter what.
>
Yep, I fully agree with Marc there: there's no need to add tweaks. Perl is
always there, and it takes probably an extra 10 seconds to build it, for 60k
of files.
I'm committing your diff with two tweaks:
- always use ${MAKE} in Makefiles. This macro is special, it's the make
that was invoked in the first place. This ensures that people testing make
patches will keep testing them.
- use shared_libs.log to re-populate shared libs.
