From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2003-01-21T11:16:39+09:00
Subject: Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets

Hi,

In message "Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets"
    on 03/01/20, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@sympatico.ca> writes:

|1. no C++ support (I stopped using C). I have to change gcc for g++; The
|former works fine only on certain platforms with certain versions of the
|compiler. For the rest, "g++" has to be used.

mkmf.rb does support C++, using $(CXX) for compiler, cpp, cxx, or C
for extension.  But I personally do not (and will not) use C++, so
that I'd like to hear about the better mkmf.rb C++ support.

|2. no support for other languages/situations (I generate assembly
|language code from a ruby script). If mkmf is not going to support that
|(which is fine with me), then it could at least provide a means to plug
|my own makefile additions in. This includes hooks into
|rules all/clean/distclean/etc.

Indeed.  Do you have any suggestion?

|3. no support for multiple directories of source files (I have three).

I'm not sure what do you mean by "multiple directories of source
files".  For example, ext/digest has 5 C source directories and 1 ruby
source directory, perhaps this is not what you want.

|4. I don't know what's supposed to be the difference between site-install
|and install, but the directory that "install" installs into is not the one
|my extension was installing into before mkmf came here.

The one install the extension should decide whether it is going to be
installed by site-install or install.  site-install was originally
introduced for the extensions and libraries not controlled under
platform's packaging system.

|5. Where is documentation supposed to be installed? (this is not a
|mkmf-specific issue)

There's no standard rule, so that Ruby cannot define standard place to
install.  I prefer using RDoc and let RDoc define where to install
documents.

							matz.