Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@...>]

Am 21.05.2014 10:22 schröbte Ulrich Schmidt:
> Am 21.05.2014 10:16, schrieb Thijs Schreijer:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org
> > > [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> > > Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2014 13:53
> > > To: Lua mailing list
> > > Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> > >
> > > > It seems that plain MinGW doesn't have `rm` or `install` executables
> > > > (or a `mkdir` that understands `-p`), so you really have to work hard
> > > > to make the install target work for MinGW ...
> > >
> > > We haven't got any complaints about this but perhaps we should just
> > > remove the mingw target and avoid noise?
> >
> > So.... there was some opposition to remove the MinGW target. But what
> > if a separate makefile for MinGW was included (in /etc for example,
> > similar to the /etc/luavs.bat file for Visual Studio)?
> >
> > It would allow a specific makefile, working on more Windows
> > configurations (eg. No 'cp', or 'rm', but their plain Windows
> > equivalents) without polluting the generic makefile.
> >
> > Thijs
> Why not? :) As long as it works and is easier to maintain, its ok.

That would work for me too (as does the current Makefile), but if we 
provide a full-featured Makefile for Windows including an install 
target, we really have to define a default directory layout on Windows 
(preferably one that works without setting (m)any environment variables 
or compiler flags, or that at least has some other advantage over the 
alternatives) ...

> Ulrich.

Philipp