compatibility Re: link: "Recursive Make Considered Harmful"
george at galis.org
Wed Jan 12 12:22:36 PST 2005
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:41:06AM +1000, Andrew Hacking wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 22:22, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
>> -On [20050111 12:42], Christopher Vance (christopher at xxxxxx) wrote:
>> I agree to that. I am just hard thinking if this is a reasonable
>> assumption. I cannot envision much right now that need external shell
>> scripting or such given a sufficiently decent command set inside the build
>Some places where I have been forced to use shell variable assignment in
> - os/arch/platform detection eg: 'uname' for multi-platform builds.
> - converting pathnames (when dealing with Windoze systems)
> - wild-carding, eg: just pull in *.c as sources without having to
>specify them manually.
> - interfacing to other build systems to extract variables
> - interfacing to source code control systems
A few months back Matt D had mentioned the idea of compatibility.h, ahem,
Then instead of adding quirks for various OS's we could require that
the platform provide the <portability.h> file according to the
standard <snip> portability.h would have things like:
#define _SPS_HAS_SENDFILE_A_ 1 /* type A sendfile */
#define _SPS_HAS_SENDFILE_B_ 1 /* type B sendfile */
#define _SPS_HAS_VSNPRINTF 1 /* vsnprintf supported */
Anymore thoughts on the idea?
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE
http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george at xxxxxxxxx
More information about the Kernel