[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: talk amongst yourselves: "iterated" operations over
From: |
Robert Anderson |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: talk amongst yourselves: "iterated" operations over configs |
Date: |
15 Sep 2003 23:03:54 -0700 |
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 22:55, Miles Bader wrote:
> Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> > > As for --config, well, I'm not yet a willing user, so I'll leave that
> > > to others, but it does seem like it would be annoying to have to keep
> > > track of the config; maybe if build-config stashed away the config name
> > > in {arch}/=current-config it could be read by --config or something...
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by 'keep track of the config.' What's to
> > keep track of?
>
> The name of the config.
>
> E.g., `tla build-config CONFIG' does the equivalent of
> `echo CONFIG > {arch}/=config'. And then `tla update --config' reads
> {arch}/=config to get the config name instead of having the user specify
> it.
While I see the basis for the idea, I think your stated usage (buildcfg
and then replacing some trees) is a reason not to create this state when
there are no mechanisms to enforce that state or keep track of changes
to it.
I wouldn't have any problems keeping track of the config I intend to use
with such a facility, because I tend to instantiate trees for a given
config and work on them as a unit.
You could even conceivably want to iterate over a different config from
the one you instantiated with buildcfg (say you have configs for
semi-orthogonal subprojects in a really big project. I actually do have
this.)
Bob
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] talk amongst yourselves: "iterated" operations over configs, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/16