On Wednesday 08 July 2009 20:21:11 Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Mike Frysinger<[email protected]> wrote:
> > you have duplicated copyright notices here too
>
> The Cisco junk is just to pass by our in-house copyright checker, but
> I suppose it really doesn't matter anyhow...

i also noticed the statements "all rights reserved" ... i dont think those 
have any business being in open source code

> > the if checking in the clean target seems unnecessary
>
> Uh, no. If someone's root and they specify $(INSTALL_DIR) := / (or
> worse, empty), it'll nuke the host machine's entire rootfs. I ran the
> build as a non-root user when I ran into that issue -- and quickly
> quashed it :)...

sorry, i meant the "-d" part.  besides, all recent distros will refuse to run 
something like `rm -rf /` -- the util itself rejects "/".

> > for pre/post install hooks, why not declare a common name and everyone
> > use that rather than forcing people to declare it.  i.e. declare the
> > target "post- install-hook" as a .PHONY and always call/depend/etc... on
> > it.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this comment. Can you review to spots in the
> patch (when I upload it tonight), so this can be resolved?

testcases/kernel/controllers/cpuset/Makefile:
why must "install" manually depend on pre-install ?  that dependency should 
always be there leaving the subdir to only have to define the pre-install 
target.

testcases/Makefile:
i dont get all these xxx_DEPS variables and the install-testcases-bin target

> > why cant testcases/kernel/Makefile leverage these .mk files ?  the whole
> > point was to get away from these custom written jobbies ...
>
> Some of these Makefiles get a bit ugly with the pre- and post- junk...
> There are a small number of Makefiles that are haunted by this work,
> but then again I did some more rework with the generic_trunk_target
> define.

so that means you'll fix the Makefile to use the .mk files

> > what's this business of every Makefile having to declare MAKE_TARGETS ?
> >  this should be a common default.
>
> It defaults to a wildcard of the .c files in the directory -- hence
> the `?='. If that's a bad default, please let me know.

i'm talking about the Makefiles that are setting this variable.  i.e.
testcases/kernel/controllers/cpuset/cpuset_syscall_test/Makefile
testcases/kernel/fs/proc/Makefile
tools/Makefile

> > doing a for loop on a `rm` command is silly.  call `rm` once.
>
> Yeah. I should be applying xargs instead of a loop. Calling rm once
> may overflow the command line though (like with testcases/bin if it
> grows large enough).

if you really want to go that far, but i was looking at 
testcases/kernel/include/Makefile.  there's no way that is going to overflow.  
besides, i guess there shouldnt be a clean target in there anyways -- it 
should be using the default one.

> > debugging/optimization/warning/stripping flags shouldnt be added in any
> > Makefile that is being converted to these common .mk files.  same for any
> > DEBUG_XXX flags.
>
> Agreed. I was just duplicating what already existed, hoping that we
> could sweep up this stuff after everything was in and the base
> infrastructure was stable.

i'd prefer we scrub the crap now

> > i dont see the point in declaring empty rules like "install: ;".  if
> > they're declared .PHONY, there is no need to add explicit rules to sub
> > Makefiles.
>
> They're there to avoid errors with targets not being found if I'm
> running recursive Make rules over the entire directory tree. So, I
> agree it's silly, but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears and I'll
> get on it ASAP. I'm trying to avoid cramming more variables into the
> Make system because it will only generate more confusion...

let's look at testcases/kernel/include/Makefile.  how would a missing install 
target here generate an error ?

> > clean targets should always delete common things like "*.o".  forcing
> > people to have to manually declare these is a waste.
>
> Ok. Once upon a time (~1 year ago) I found a testcase that generated a
> .o file which was just as input for a testcase (it was under
> testcases/kernel/io somewhere -- maybe the floppy test). Maybe that's
> a bug then that should be solved...

we should fix that then as that's just craziness
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to