Re: woody make problems
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:09:58PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > what if - we made rescue.sh (and friends) smart enough to know about its
> > size and other optings (ie: -s) so we could do this:
> >
> > resc%.bin: $(root_for_rescue) linux% rescue.sh $(arch_rescue_deps)
> > $(ROOTCMD) ./rescue.sh $(archive) "$*" $(kver) $< \
> > $(debianversion) "" $(LINGUA) $(SFONT)
> >
>
> Have the target be:
>
> release/%/rescue.bin
>
> Then rescue.sh could build the .bin right into place and we wouldn't
> need to have release.sh move it all in place (and release.sh wouldn't
> have to be manually kept in sync with the Makefiles).
>
> So we could have it try to build, for instance, on i386:
>
> release/images-1.44/compact/rescue.bin
>
> and in this case, $* would be 'images-1.44/compact'. Then release.sh
> (probalby should be a function in common.sh) could parse
> images-1.44/compact to know that the blocks we want is 1440 and the
> flavor is 'compact'.
>
> And we could slowly whittle away much of release.sh as well!
>
> This seems so much more transparent to me.
>
> Thoughts?
well. in the short term, it is a whole lot easier to just make the
extra targets in the makefiles w/o the % and if the dependency has a %
in it
resc1440%.bin: $(root_for_rescue) linux% rescue.sh $(arch_rescue_deps)
making a whole new stanza (which is what i have done locally, just so i
can get something built - it seems that not all the kernels exist in
testing yet ?)
how much work, really, do we want to put into woody b-f?
-john
Reply to: