Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 20:30:44 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: Better way to do conditional inclusion in make Message-ID: <4B573F3A-B1BA-4D6E-B2DB-5EA56ECF0321@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGHfRMCNMoisdn=Xheg-V5SnJhvB1yfk2s_RJc%2BSHYLwt4eekA@mail.gmail.com> References: <39C20BA1-E6B1-4DAE-95BB-8011A0A64D54@bsdimp.com> <54D40DC4.9070907@freebsd.org> <CAGHfRMAdOTUQZvU5D_1KYEyZdoaD4RJ2BTTOgUjrm3sK31U0kw@mail.gmail.com> <5180.1423185968@chaos> <CAGHfRMCNMoisdn=Xheg-V5SnJhvB1yfk2s_RJc%2BSHYLwt4eekA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 6:39 PM, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> =
wrote:
>> 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..
>>>=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.
>>=20
>> FILES:=3D ${FILES:O:u}
>>=20
>> should cover that case.
>=20
> Yes, but not this:
>=20
> .if ${MK_BAR} !=3D "no" && ${MK_FOO} !=3D "no"
> FILES+=3D a_lot_of_bar_in_my_foo
> .endif
There=E2=80=99s very few cases of this in the tree, so who cares :) You =
just add
the old school .if.
>>> 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
>>=20
>> Why?
>=20
> The same reason why bsd.progs.mk didn't work with bsd.prog.mk on
> FreeBSD out of the box originally -- defaults:
bsd.progs.mk is evil and should die :) I tried to leave this line out, =
but couldn=E2=80=99t :)
> 10 FILESGROUPS?=3D FILES
> 11
> 12 .for group in ${FILESGROUPS}
> 13 buildfiles: ${${group}}
> 14 .endfor
> 15
>=20
> Warner's change (based on what I understand, again I haven't looked at
> the review yet=E2=80=A6)
You should, it would answer why this isn=E2=80=99t an issue.
> would require setting FILESGROUPS explicitly. So if
> you had a Makefile snippet that defines the non-default FILESGROUPS
> already, it will break that usecase.
Why? I don=E2=80=99t set why it matters at all. This wouldn=E2=80=99t =
affect the FILES variable
expansion in line 13 at all. How would it break?
>>> 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).
>>=20
>> Not necessarily eg. if you clean/simplify the list after building it.
>=20
> I'll delay my reply on this because my other replies might change my =
question.
OK.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B573F3A-B1BA-4D6E-B2DB-5EA56ECF0321>