<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 11:00 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gaetan Nadon <<A HREF="mailto:memsize@videotron.ca">memsize@videotron.ca</A>> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 06:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > It might be nicer, but could get messy when you consider all the corner > cases. > > True, and the mess can be contained in a macro. Reusing the design for > ChangeLog is worth a shot. > Not to mention the script brings a mess of it's own in the build. It > introduces multiple points of failure. > Finding a home for the mess is not obvious. But the reason we put the ChangeLog mess in a macro is because it would be used across all the modules. If it's only being used here, then you might as well put it in the Makefile where it can be clean instead of a shell variable that's substituted. Unless we think this is going to be used in a lot places. </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> That was one more reason (and a compelling one). Nothing prohibits from packaging the code in a macro so as to keep the makefile clean. It's one way, and there are many, to organize the code. Your argument to store the code in a file was that the code was complex and obscured the makefile. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I offered an alternative which is to store the code in a macro, even if it is called just once. Although Alan pointed out it may be used by drivers, for instance.<BR> <BR> I am biased by the work I have done on ChangeLog and INSTALL. I see a design there that solves the same problem. I understand it may mean nothing to someone else, we tend to use what is familiar to us. All I am asking is to give it a try, so we can evaluate it. <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> -- Dan </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>