From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] Package infrastructure: make variables or make targets ?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:42:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091029164253.5ffa870c@surf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091025224056.59c9a6ef@surf>
Hello,
Le Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:40:56 +0100,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> a ?crit :
> 1. Use make variables, such as :
FWIW, since only Lionel gave his opinion and because as him I was more
convinced by make variables, I followed this path.
> This approach is the one used by OpenWRT. The only drawback of
> this approach is that since the variables are defined *before* calling
> the generating function $(eval $(call ...)), we don't have access
> to any variable that could be defined by the generating function.
> So, for example, the ICU_COMPILE variable must use
> $(@D)/$(ICU_SUBDIR) as the directory for the sources, instead of
> something like $(ICU_SRCDIR) that could be defined by the package
> infrastructure. In OpenWRT, they solved this problem by having a
> "include package.mk" after the package definition (name, version,
> URL, etc.), but before the definition of the different steps. But
> in our case, this means having two $(eval $(call ...)).
In fact this is not true. By escaping the variable expansions, it is
possible to post-pone the moment at which variables are expanded.
If you do :
======================================================================
define PKG_COMPILE
make -C $($(PKG)_SRCDIR)
endef
$(eval $(call PKGTARGETS,package,foo,target))
======================================================================
Then it doesn't work since $(PKG)_SRCDIR is defined while evaluating
PKGTARGETS. But if you do:
======================================================================
define PKG_COMPILE
make -C $$($$(PKG)_SRCDIR)
endef
$(eval $(call PKGTARGETS,package,foo,target))
======================================================================
Then things work as expected. Therefore, I've solved what I thought to
be the main drawback of the "make variables" solution, which is also
why I've choosen to go deeper into this direction.
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-29 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-25 21:40 [Buildroot] [RFC] Package infrastructure: make variables or make targets ? Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-25 23:51 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-26 8:35 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-27 8:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-29 15:39 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-29 17:11 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2009-10-29 21:01 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-29 17:41 ` Will Newton
2009-11-02 23:24 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-11-03 1:14 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-11-03 8:15 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-11-01 21:26 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-11-03 8:14 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-11-03 14:01 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-29 15:42 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091029164253.5ffa870c@surf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox