From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] Re: [Xenomai-core] [ANNOUNCE] Xenomai Example Repository From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <4570B112.8010204@domain.hid> References: <457002EB.8080106@domain.hid> <45705C11.2010502@domain.hid> <457064F3.5050300@domain.hid> <1164995694.4952.134.camel@domain.hid> <4570B112.8010204@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:59:08 +0100 Message-Id: <1165013948.4952.186.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: xenomai-help , Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:47 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > [...] > > > This said, I agree that adding a fake module directory to capture the > > flags set by the main kernel Makefile is one step beyond ugliness; the > > other approach being to only provide a 2.6 Makefile frag. As 2007 > > approaches, I think that anyone still involved with projects relying on > > 2.4 kernels do know how to build 2.4 modules for the targeted platform. > > I think the example modules should compile on any platform and the > "kernel CFLAGS capturing" trick is the most straight-forward way to do > it for 2.4. It simplifies our life, avoids fiddling with various arch > dependent flags in the Makefile, which will be even more ugly, and it > serves as an example on how to get proper flags. Therefore I tend to add > an appropriate script to the "scripts" subdirectory. That would be acceptable too; the capture trick is ugly, but if we really want to have the generic examples available to all platforms, I see no other way to get the exact compilation and link flags. So it's basically a matter of choice: either we don't provide any Makefile frag for 2.4, or we implement the capture trick so that every platform can compile them. -- Philippe.