Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:54:06 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Srinivas <mboxindia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Usage of "files" for config Message-ID: <200810281054.07065.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <e6a0706a0810280231p621bd4b1h63cbc19e9328680a@mail.gmail.com> References: <e6a0706a0810271522h4669359at47710cbb8f4ed2c@mail.gmail.com> <OEHZ1tqoEDjrOeMc2HFlSDyjinQ@ycxwUD7qGgJ%2BeGkrCSeKiWGxBdk> <e6a0706a0810280231p621bd4b1h63cbc19e9328680a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 05:31:36 am Srinivas wrote: > 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. The usage of config goes back to BSD itself prior to FreeBSD for one. However, I find the 'files' format a lot easier to parse and work with then the mess of .ifdef's, etc. that would end up in 'kern/Makefile' for example. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200810281054.07065.jhb>