Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] build: add make macro for making file from file.in

["Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1596 bytes --]

On 17.11.25 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.11.2025 13:48, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 17.11.25 13:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 14.11.2025 12:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> --- a/Config.mk
>>>> +++ b/Config.mk
>>>> @@ -159,6 +159,19 @@ define move-if-changed
>>>>    	if ! cmp -s $(1) $(2); then mv -f $(1) $(2); else rm -f $(1); fi
>>>>    endef
>>>>    
>>>> +PATH_FILES := Paths
>>>> +INC_FILES := $(foreach f, $(PATH_FILES), $(XEN_ROOT)/config/$(f).mk)
>>>> +
>>>> +include $(INC_FILES)
>>>
>>> Is any of the above part of introducing the macro? "Paths" is already a
>>> specific case of holding patterns that want replacing. In turn ...
>>>
>>>> +BUILD_MAKE_VARS := $(foreach f, $(PATH_FILES), $(shell awk '$$2 == ":=" { print $$1; }' $(XEN_ROOT)/config/$(f).mk.in))
>>>
>>> ... it's not quite clear to me how it can be $(PATH_FILES) here.
>>
>> See patch 4.
>>
>> PATH_FILES is specifying the .mk files containing the marker definitions.
>> I need the ability to have multiple such files in order to be able to let
>> tools/configure build its own definitions.
> 
> That's a good example - why would that affect the stubdom/ part of the tree?
> Imo what pattern file(s) to use wants leaving to the invokee of the macro,
> not pinning down globally for everyone.

Yes, I could add the tools specific marker file in the use cases under tools.

The question is whether adding it to 6 Makefiles is really worth that
optimization, especially as only building the man files would be effected
right now (which could change in future, of course).


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3743 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]