From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:06:47 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/4] Makefile: expose 'graph-depends' to generate a graph of the dependency tree In-Reply-To: <20131228115634.GC3373@free.fr> References: <0fad080c135d79abdbe042514e30b393c25f5a77.1388185918.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20131228124607.193ac484@skate> <20131228115634.GC3373@free.fr> Message-ID: <20131228130647.78e56259@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:56:34 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Why isn't that one done in the package infrastructure, i.e in > > pkg-generic.mk ? > > For two reasons: > - to have both graph-depends and %-graph-depends side-by-side, so it > is easier to update the rules, Right, that's a pretty good reason. > - to limit the number of rules in the Makefile, which is already a bit > long to parse. Well, you still have the rule in pkg-generic.mk, which you added to make the completion work. So practically speaking, the number of rules is the same. > I initially added that in package/pkg-generic.mk: > $(1)-graph-depends: > @install -d $(O)/graphs Should be $(INSTALL) maybe? > @./support/scripts/graph-depends $(1) \ > |dot -Tpdf \ > -o $(O)/graphs/$$(@).pdf > > But this adds yet another rule per-package to the Makefile. So for the > reasons above, I decided to move it with graph-depends. > > But I don't really care, I can change it back to a per-package rule. To me, it makes more sense to have all the per-package rules in the package infrastructure, but that's not a very strong opinion, since the argument of having both the per-package and the global rules together also makes sense. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com