On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:24:55PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:
> >> The old rule worked, most of the time, but had several issues:
> >>
> >> - It depended on the corresponding guilt-*.txt file, but the usage.sh
> >> script actually reads ../guilt-foo.
> >>
> >> - Actually, each usage-%.txt depended on all guilt-*.txt files, so
> >> make had to do more work than necessary if a single file was
> >> altered.
> >>
> >> - The construct broke parallel make, which would spawn several
> >> usage.sh at once. This leads to unnecessary work, and could
> >> potentially result in broken usage files if the "echo some_string >
> >> some_file" construct used by usage.sh isn't atomic.
> >>
> >> Fixed by letting the usage.sh script update a single file, and writing
> >> a proper implicit make rule. This makes parallel make work a lot
> >> better.
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> >> There is a small downside, though, as usage.sh will now be run once
> >> for each command (if everything is regenerated). I think it is worth
> >> to pay that price to get the correctness. This command is still very
> >> fast compared to the docbook processing.
> >
> > Given how much simple usage.sh got, I'm thinking it might be worth it to
> > just remove it, and just shove the rule into the makefile itself.
> >
> > Ok, I tried to write it. I came up with the following. (Note: I have *not*
> > tested it.) It's not *that* ugly.
> >
> > usage-guilt-%.txt: ../guilt-% usage.sh
> > echo "'$(basename $<)' `sed -n -e '/^USAGE=/{s/USAGE="//; s/"$//; p; q}' $<`" > $@
> >
> > What do you think? Too opaque? Your change looks good.
>
> Too opaque,
Between that and the other patch in the series that modifies usage.sh, your
patch is good as is.
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> and not tested enough. It doesn't work, since make will
> handle all $. You need to write $$ instead of $ in at least one of the
> places. I would stick with usage.sh, as getting the quoting right when
> you have make, shell, subshells, and sed all at the same time is just
> too painful.
And this is comming from the person that rewrote cmd/shouldfail in a way
that the average shell user will go "whaaa??" :P (To be fair, I don't know
of a simpler way to make cmd/shouldfail.)
> But it is of course up to you. You are the maintainer. :-)
Heh.
Jeff.
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a
concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a
"you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic,
powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html