[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 2/3] package: fix generic extract target for top-level parallel make
arnout at mind.be
Thu Aug 22 15:59:04 UTC 2013
On 22/08/13 09:44, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>> On 18/07/13 11:12, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> $(1)-patch: $(1)-extract $$($(2)_TARGET_PATCH)
>>> -$(1)-extract: $(1)-source \
>>> - $$($(2)_TARGET_EXTRACT)
>>> +$$($(2)_TARGET_EXTRACT): $$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE)
>>> +$(1)-extract: $$($(2)_TARGET_EXTRACT)
>>> $(1)-depends: $$($(2)_DEPENDENCIES)
>> On second observation, I don't really like this change, because it makes
>> the extract and patch parts asymmetrical with the others. I would prefer one
>> patch that changes it for all the targets. But then, the behaviour does
>> change, because rebuilding one package will also trigger a rebuild of the
>> packages that depend on it. Which may be a good thing, of course...
> Do you mean a single patch that changes all the targets? IMHO the
> patch becomes too complex, but if is the preferred way i'm fine with
Yes. I estimate it will modify about 50 lines, so I don't see a problem.
> To be able to change the others targets i need to add stamp file for
> every target inside $$($(2)_DEPENDENCIES,
> i need to do that because a file cannot depends on a non existing file.
That's not true. Take the following Makefile:
X_DEPS = y z
Y_DEPS = z
.PRECIOUS: %.source %.extract
Type 'make x', and all the build, config, extract, source files will be
touched in the right order.
The .PRECIOUS line may not be needed in practice, I added it here
because there are no explicit rules involving *.source and *.extract,
therefore these files will be deleted after a successful build.
> If there is any chance that such modification is going to be accepted
> i restart to work on the second part.
>> Also, I think it would be nicer / clearer to put these dependencies in the
>> %-rules at the top of the file, rather than specifying them per package.
> Do you mean to put together all those rules between the %-rules
> section and inner-generic-package function?
> or to scatter them in the %-rules section?
No, I mean to do it like the example above: use the % rules to specify
the dependencies between the stamp files, rather than an explicit rule
for each package.
> Best regards
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
More information about the buildroot