Re: [PATCH] newlib: merge iconvdata into top-level Makefile
Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.newlib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <YfE/Uo05/OJ1JT4/@calimero.vinschen.de> |
On Jan 25 16:19, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 25 Jan 2022 13:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Local.mk is neither a name speaking for itself, nor does it stand out > > due to being one of very few files in a dir starting with uppercase, or > > due to its catchphrase "Make...". In terms of easy recognition for > > people trying to wrap their head around the build system and trying to > > find the right place to add or improve build rules, local.mk isn't > > overly helpful. > > > > The *.mk files in Free/Open/NetBSD are not just called local.mk and are > > spread out over all the subdirs. Most of these files are in the sys/conf > > and /share/mk dirs and have a speaking name like kern.opts.mk, etc. > > > > In the core kernel and lib subdirs all BSDs use files called Makefile.inc, > > actually. > > > > Therefore I would prefer Makefile.inc, too, as name for the Makefile > > snippets in our various subdirs, if you don't mind. > > "local" is communicating that this is make code local to this directory. > ".mk" is communicating that this is a small make fragment/module. taken > together, they say this is a local make fragment/module for this dir. > > Makefile.inc is a bad name and deviates from what all other GNU/toolchain > projects are adopting. i don't think newlib should be "innovating" here. > > that said, i'm not the newlib maintainer, and if the newlib maintainer(s) > want to make "Makefile.inc" a hard requirement and not approve commits > using "local.mk", then that's the answer. i disagree, but i don't get > the final say. Either Makefile.inc, or create a newlib/config dir, move the .mk files there and give them names matching their subdir (preferred) or task. Corinna