On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Piotr Dobrogost wrote:

> Splitting targets to orthogonal concepts would be a good start - instead of
> having "release-half-a-dozen-of-combinations" and at the same time
> "debug-half-a-dozen-of-THE-SAME-combinations" we should have
> CFG1=debug|release CFG2=the-rest which results in reduction of explicit
> targets by the factor of 2. The same goes for dynamic/static.

I'm indeed open for that. I don't think we have a single developer who's
actually using that makefile so to my knowledge there's nobody who will
provide any strong opinions on those details.

If you can present a way you think is better and clearer then please do!

> I don't have problems with targets' names like ssl, ssl-dll, zlib-dll and so
> on. Talking about targets I had in mind output files rather than targets'
> names. So for any target using static RTL it's common in VC to have MT
> suffix in names of output files (libcurlMT.lib, libcurlMT.dll) and so on.

Well "zlib-ssl-dll" as an example implies using zlib and ssl to create a dll.
libcurlMT.dll only mentions the memory model. Wouldn't it then be called
libcurl-zlib-ssl-MT.dll?

And here too I'm fine with output files as target names, as long as we have
them documented in at least a basic manner.

-- 
  / daniel.haxx.se