Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] backports: define C code backport version info using CPTCFG_

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 21:29 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> > What difference does this make? It'll break some scripting that we have
> > for sure (assuming the BACKPORTED_ prefix), so naturally I'd like to see
> > why it is necessary.
> 
> Sure, let me explain. So if we don't unify we will have to end up with defines
> for some packaging version scheme to another. The approach I took here was to
> minimize impact on on userspace side generation side of things and only
> affect the target C code by modifying the Makefile to define variables
> we can share. That's pretty much it. I ended up defining things with
> CPTCFG_ as that will get morphed to the other bp_prefix later for us
> when integrating. That lets us share it.
> 
> Addressing this on scripts that do rely on touching C / H files should
> just be a matter of doing a direct translation to 3 variables.

In this particular case I'm not really sure I see why it needs to be
morphed at all?

Anyway, I realized that the whole thing doesn't matter as much to me as
I thought it does, we just have to adjust the one place that changes our
versions file.

johannes