Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:01:36 +0530 From: Srinivas <mboxindia@gmail.com> To: "Eygene Ryabinkin" <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Usage of "files" for config Message-ID: <e6a0706a0810280231p621bd4b1h63cbc19e9328680a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <OEHZ1tqoEDjrOeMc2HFlSDyjinQ@ycxwUD7qGgJ%2BeGkrCSeKiWGxBdk> References: <e6a0706a0810271522h4669359at47710cbb8f4ed2c@mail.gmail.com> <OEHZ1tqoEDjrOeMc2HFlSDyjinQ@ycxwUD7qGgJ%2BeGkrCSeKiWGxBdk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eygene, Your reply is very helpful. Thank you very much. On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> wrote: >> I would like to know the usage of files and files.[arch] in sys/conf. >> Basically, I didnt get the advantage of having a common file for >> compilation(like files) rather than an individual Makefile in each >> subdirectory. > > 'files' and 'files.$ARCH' are the input directives for the config(8) > utility. Makefile is produced with the help of these files. The > rationale for having 'files' and 'files.$ARCH' is simple: there are > platform-specific directives and common directives. Still, I didnt get the purpose of having a common "files" file for the kernel to generate Makefile. I am trying to understand the advantage of this approach with the conventional way of having a makefile for each sub-directory(device or module) and recurse from top of kernel with a configuration file dictating what features need to be included in the kernel. Thanks, Srinivas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e6a0706a0810280231p621bd4b1h63cbc19e9328680a>