On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 12:49, Paul Spooren <[email protected]> wrote: > > What you suggest is about what we have right now. This kind of creates a > > misleading situation where for some targets subtargets are present, while > > for others paths and image names are "fixed" in several places to include a > > "generic". The reason for Paul's patch was to get rid of the fixes at > > individual places (which was/is applied somewhat inconsistently) by just > > making all targets apply to the same logic (i.e. that there is at least one > > subtarget). > > So, the empty files are introduced to make the process of building and > > creating images afterwards simpler (to follow/understand). > > > > I was suffering from the same problem when I dealt with OpenWrt-derived > > firmware, where I suddenly encountered a target without subtargets and had > > to implement extra code to work around that. > > > > However, I also wondered whether one couldn't code around the necessity of > > the empty file, and just add the SUBTARGET/SUBTARGETS variables here... > > Thanks for commenting, that's very much my point! > > Maybe the easiest solution is to add `SUBTARGET ?= generic` to > include/image.mk instead of introducing empty files. Will try that tomorrow.
Thanks, this is what I meant, providing some sensible default value(s). I have to admit, even after reading your changelog and Adrian's email twice, I still don't quite grasp what issue this change is trying to fix. An example might be nice in the changelog. Regards Jonas _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
