Simplify distrib-dirs a bit
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by bapt on Oct 16 2015, 6:21 AM.

Details

Reviewers

imp
bdrewery

Commits

rS340112: Simplify a bit distrib-dirs target

Summary

By using bmake's multivariable for loops we can simplify a bit

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Passed

Unit

No Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 777
Build 777: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

bapt updated this revision to Diff 9442.Oct 16 2015, 6:21 AM

bapt retitled this revision from to Simplify distrib-dirs a bit.

bapt updated this object.

bapt edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

bapt added reviewers: bdrewery, imp.

bdrewery requested changes to this revision.Oct 16 2015, 2:28 PM

bdrewery edited edge metadata.

bdrewery added inline comments.

etc/Makefile
367	Adding DESTDIR in here early seems wrong. It looks like it will cause line 369 to go from older {DISTBASE}{_d} to newer {DISTBASE}{DESTDIR}{_d} rather than expected {DESTDIR}{DISTBASE}{_d} done later. It also messes with the sed line for the metalog and adds in {DESTDIR} where it wasn't before.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Oct 16 2015, 2:28 PM

bapt added inline comments.Oct 16 2015, 2:36 PM

etc/Makefile
367	Good catch oups I'll fix

I'm unclear on our position on bmake in head. The meta mode merge pretty much nailed fmake in the coffin, but imp seemed to think we could or should still support fmake in some situations. I forget what he said exactly.

I would prefer we only support bmake. I think given it is the default make in 10 there is not much reason to support fmake at this point.

In D3915#81336, @bdrewery wrote:

I'm unclear on our position on bmake in head. The meta mode merge pretty much nailed fmake in the coffin, but imp seemed to think we could or should still support fmake in some situations. I forget what he said exactly.

I would prefer we only support bmake. I think given it is the default make in 10 there is not much reason to support fmake at this point.

I am not suggesting your change shouldn't go in, there's no reason it shouldn't IMO as we use the same .for X Y elsewhere now and bmakeisms all over.

On head we do only support bmake, on 10 we do support both