On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:43:43 +0200
Herve Codina [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
However, I'm not a huge fan of having this right in the middle of the
infrastructure. It feels like a small detail that gets handled in the
middle of super generic infrastructure code.
The issue is that I don't really have a good alternative proposal :-/
Maybe using a macro defined closed to fixup-libtool-files and calling
this macro here instead of '$(Q)rm ...' will help.
Do you think it will be better ?
Either a macro, or a list of files that are removed, perhaps?
This add a little complexity in overwrite detection (filter out) and
I prefer having overwrite detection quite stupid. It checks for
overwrites without any exception.
Adding exception now in the detection mechanism is opening the door to
more and more exceptions.
Yes, I understand your argument. As I stated: I'm also not sure which
solution to propose here. I was just not a big fan of this removal of
one specific file, there, in the middle of a highly generic piece of
infrastructure.
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com