default_config() optimization?

[Jon South]

Chad Kittel wrote:
> Well, that BUILD file for dd_rescue should just be a call to 'default_make' if 
> that helps.  
> 
> But I know that isn't really the issue as you wanted to see the BUILD file 
> totally eliminated.  If I get this right you are just suggesting that the the 
> 'default_build' can be used in basically all default situations ignoring the 
> configure part if ./configure does not exist.  I have mixed feelings on this.  
> I kind of like the explicit nature of knowing this "isn't really a default 
> build", but it's certainly not needed information by anymeans either.  I'm 
> indifferent I guess.

Well, that's the thing though, for lots of small projects, "make && make 
install" is very common. I figure you might as well assume it's a 
default type of install.

This code could also be put into default_build() and only run 
default_config() if configure doesnt exist.

I've tried to think of all the ways that this might impact either end 
users or module development, and I cant think of any way it would cause 
a problem.

-Striker

-- 
The system requirements said "Windows 95 or better."
So I installed Linux.

v1sw6CUhw5ln4pr5ck4ma6/7u8Lw3Tm5l6+8GOa21s6Mr2e5+7t5/6TNDVESLFRXMb3Hp0en6/7g9ASTHCNMP 
www.hackerkey.com

Registered Linux User: 332618
<http://striker.interhact.net/striker.asc>