LYNX-DEV Makefile support

[Michael Sokolov]

   Barry Rountree <address@hidden> writes:
>Thank you for stating your point so succinctly.  I respectfully disagree.
   OK, if you don't like my main point, let me try one of my secondary
points.
   So what advantage do you get by shipping a static Makefile with the old
broken BSDI target rather than with my 4.4BSD target? You ship the static
Makefile anyway. People who use the autoconfigure script won't even notice
the change, and the people who use the static Makefile will benefit. If a
change DOESN'T HURT ANYONE but benefits at least one living thing, that
change should be made.
   I fully understand your arguments that the autoconfigure script gives
users a lot of benefit. Please understand that I'm not proposing to throw
it out. I only propose to GIVE THE USERS A CHOICE. Remember: if it ain't
broke, don't fix it. If the static Makefile is there, keep it there.
   You may object by saying that to keep the static Makefile in place means
to keep adding new targets for new Unices and splitting existing ones to
support various deviations. But that's not what I'm proposing. I propose
only to keep only the fundamentalist targets. There is a very good reason
for doing that: a person who uses deviations like alternative curses or new
BIND is not a fundamentalist and won't object to the autoconfigure script,
while a person who does object to it is a fundamentalist and doesn't need
deviations or targets for new OSes. My 4.4BSD target is a perfect example
of a fundamentalist Makefile target. It won't bring any maintenance
headaches, since it doesn't need updating: 4.4BSD has been written once and
forever.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Phone: 216-646-1864
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: address@hidden
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;