On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 19/1/18 3:37 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Sebastian Huber >> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Am 18. Jan 2018 um 16:06 schrieb Gedare Bloom ged...@rtems.org: >>> >>> [...] >>>> I also took a quick look through the commits, and I have a small nit. >>>> Might I suggest "headers.sh" and "headers.am" instead of "header.sh" >>>> and "header.am"? >>> >>> I want to add this stuff to the bootstrap script as a -p replacement. >> >> That's fine with me. I would still prefer the generated file be named >> headers.am to reflect the purpose of defining the (multiple) include >> headers. > > I do not think we should do this. I would prefer any addition is done by hand > to > avoid picking up any header sitting in a developers tree. The initial bulk > injection should be a one off and after that API additions need consideration. > That's fair too. It should not be such a common case to add to the headers.am files. One thing though, the file should have a comment injected at the top to note that it is a generated file, not to edit it (and how to regenerate it).
> I would prefer `bootstrap -p` becomes a nop. > > Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
