On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 21:29 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > What difference does this make? It'll break some scripting that we have > > for sure (assuming the BACKPORTED_ prefix), so naturally I'd like to see > > why it is necessary. > > Sure, let me explain. So if we don't unify we will have to end up with defines > for some packaging version scheme to another. The approach I took here was to > minimize impact on on userspace side generation side of things and only > affect the target C code by modifying the Makefile to define variables > we can share. That's pretty much it. I ended up defining things with > CPTCFG_ as that will get morphed to the other bp_prefix later for us > when integrating. That lets us share it. > > Addressing this on scripts that do rely on touching C / H files should > just be a matter of doing a direct translation to 3 variables. In this particular case I'm not really sure I see why it needs to be morphed at all? Anyway, I realized that the whole thing doesn't matter as much to me as I thought it does, we just have to adjust the one place that changes our versions file. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
