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>