On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: [...]
For (B), the generation of the Makefile is a one time thing. After first generation, it should be properly maintained manually. We can not pretend to autoguess any Makefile right, but the trivial ones, and encouraging regeneration like this is just dangerous. So for this case we don't need those options either, the user can simply edit the resulting Makefile and add them in there just as easily.
I agree on the A/B distinction. However even in the B case we need these options for those cases where winemaker generates a whole lot of makefiles. For instance when I test winemaker on the 'Programming Windows 98' it generates 146 makefiles. Eventhough it's supposed to be a one-time thing (which it has unfortunately not been in the past but hopefully this is behind us now), it's a major pain to go through 146 Makefiles to add/remove some settings that you know are needed everywhere... like -DSTRICT.
Once winemaker gets used on even larger projects, which is the eventual goal, it may end up generating even more Makefiles and the options will be needed to get and initial result that needs as little modification as possible.