Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 20:20:09 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> 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: <105BE327-D1C3-492D-866C-F3F3FB48D991@bsdimp.com> 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
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 6:06 PM, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> = wrote: >=20 > ... >=20 >> 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.. >=20 > 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. This isn=E2=80=99t that valid a point. It=E2=80=99s a trivial annoyance. = When this construct can=E2=80=99t cope (like for things that deal with arch dependent = stuff), you fall back to old-school ifs. > 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: >=20 > 1. Break using FILESGROUPS How? > 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). Explain. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?105BE327-D1C3-492D-866C-F3F3FB48D991>