M.Canales.es wrote: ><snip> >> - Zlib to defOpt_fPIC >> - With the nice confirmation page, "zlib Zlib" isn't descriptive >> - Showing the inheritance in the override readout is moreso >> - Plus, if you have 5-10 packages that all need "-fPIC", >> it wouldn't make sense to have 5-10 identical files for each >> package or have such as "fooPkg Zlib" in the override file.. > > Naming it defOpt_fPIC due that defOpt is at this moment the name for "-O3 > -pipe" mode. Maybe the defOpt file should be renamed to "O3-pipe"
I think that no matter what, there's going to be a naming issue. Case 0: DEF_OPT_MODE=defOpt opt_config.d/defOpt opt_config.d/defOpt_fPIC opt_config.d/defOpt_fooAppend Case 1: DEF_OPT_MODE=myOpt If someone changes the default mode in the options, all the filenames technically should be changed, and then the code inside them has to match. ie: opt_config.d/myOpt opt_config.d/defOpt opt_config.d/myOpt_fPIC: CFLAGS_defOpt_fPIC --> CFLAGS_myOpt_fPIC opt_config.d/myOpt_fooAppend Case 2: DEF_OPT_MODE=O3_pipe opt_config.d/O3_pipe opt_config.d/O3_pipe_fPIC ... Note that it would have to be 'O3_pipe' not 'O3-pipe' because the hyphen is an invalid variable name. Also, the '_' would imply that there is an optimization appending 'pipe' to the inherited 'O3'. People still have to change all the filenames and variable names in the directory. Case 3: DEF_OPT_MODE=myOpt opt_config.d/defOpt opt_config.d/myOpt opt_config.d/defOpt_fPIC .. Here, someone is saying, use myOpt as the default. In this case, 'defOpt' can be understood as 'the default optimization mode defined by DEF_OPT_MODE'. It's intuitive enough. What else would you call it to disambiguate though? default_fPIC, defOptMode_fPIC, or simply _fPIC to imply that it's inheriting from the default rather than a specific file? --- All the changing filenames and variable names would be unexpected though; the ability to choose your default is there for flexibility. As I saw it, people would change the values in defOpt as they desired so they would know what 'defOpt' is, and the '_*' are descriptive additions that can be used by multiple packages. Anyhow, this was just my thinking; I kinda like how it is, but it doesn't really matter what things are called from a functional perspective. Thanks again for all the work getting this stuff into jhalfs. Regards, Jeremy. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
