Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>
Cc: kbuild devel <kbuild-devel@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 9:36 am

Hi Sam,

On Saturday 29 September 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

ACK. Also ACK for asflags, if done the same way :-)


Yes, but please bear in mind, what the developers are trying
to express in these cases.


This is "feature FOO of module BAR" where the feature itself
cannot be a module. The composition scheme described in 
section 3.3 is at least equally useful. And that is used today.
Maybe the documentation of that scheme is not prominent enough :-)


This is the only one needed, because it is cumbersome to express
negative rules in kbuild to include stubs (e.g. nommu stuff). 
But again this can be done with composition rules right now, but
is order dependent. If we could get rid of this requirement,
I would be happy already. So kbuild is just lacking an "else" 
clause here.


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Sam Ravnborg, (Sat Sep 29, 4:11 pm)
Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Andreas Gruenbacher, (Mon Oct 1, 6:57 pm)
Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Ingo Oeser, (Sun Sep 30, 9:36 am)
Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Jan Engelhardt, (Mon Oct 1, 4:35 pm)
Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Adrian Bunk, (Sat Sep 29, 11:02 pm)
Re: [RFC] Extending kbuild syntax, Sam Ravnborg, (Sun Sep 30, 6:29 am)