On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 4:48 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Understood. My guess is nobody will care about the process spawn in > scripts/generate_rust_analyzer.py. Someone might care about the one in > rust/Makefile, but there are already 4 others. By the way, I notice those are Yeah, I was referring to the `Makefile` one (the other one, indeed, does not matter, as you say). > using $(shell ...) - should I be using that form as well? Hmm... I assume you tested the patch, but how would the patch work without it? Or am I confused? > I guess that's not for me to say. It would be great to have basic automation. Generally, when submitting a new feature for upstream, especially one that requires new testing, it is common that the submitter is asked to take care of it or help doing so. I guess, in this case, Daniel is the one handling the macOS support out-of-tree. Anyway, we may need to use variables for this, so I think it is fine -- upstream can keep the variable working easily, and out-of-tree can test the overall macOS support. > My apologies for the oversight. No worries, thanks! Cheers, Miguel
