Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:26:08 -0800 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Better way to do conditional inclusion in make Message-ID: <5180.1423185968@chaos> In-Reply-To: <CAGHfRMAdOTUQZvU5D_1KYEyZdoaD4RJ2BTTOgUjrm3sK31U0kw@mail.gmail.com> References: <39C20BA1-E6B1-4DAE-95BB-8011A0A64D54@bsdimp.com> <54D40DC4.9070907@freebsd.org> <CAGHfRMAdOTUQZvU5D_1KYEyZdoaD4RJ2BTTOgUjrm3sK31U0kw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: > > how does it cope with the case where a single file is dependent on either of > > two options. > > (we have this in our tree.. not sure if it occurs in the FreeBSD tree.) > > file could occur in both lists or twice in one list.. > > This is a good, valid point. I think that Warner's proposal will fix > the simple case (using one knob), but not the more complex case. FILES:= ${FILES:O:u} should cover that case. > What concerns me about the short description of the implementation, > (and something that I'm going to add to the phabricator review) is > that this will: > > 1. Break using FILESGROUPS Why? > 2. Requires creating snippets for dealing with magic in bsd.*.mk (I > wouldn't want this magic going into the general purpose snippets > because it would probably break backwards compatibility). Not necessarily eg. if you clean/simplify the list after building it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5180.1423185968>