The akefile rules for %.o and flashrom.o are identical. Let %.o handle flashrom.o as well.
Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Index: flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile =================================================================== --- flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile (Revision 624) +++ flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile (Arbeitskopie) @@ -70,11 +70,8 @@
FEATURE_LIBS = $(shell LANG=C grep -q "FTDISUPPORT := yes" .features && printf "%s" "-lftdi")
-flashrom.o: flashrom.c .features - $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) -c -o $@ $< $(SVNDEF) - %.o: %.c .features - $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@ $(SVNDEF) + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) $(SVNDEF) -o $@ -c $<
clean: rm -f $(PROGRAM) *.o
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:55PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
The akefile rules for %.o and flashrom.o are identical. Let %.o handle flashrom.o as well.
Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Index: flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile
--- flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile (Revision 624) +++ flashrom-makefile_cleanup/Makefile (Arbeitskopie) @@ -70,11 +70,8 @@
FEATURE_LIBS = $(shell LANG=C grep -q "FTDISUPPORT := yes" .features && printf "%s" "-lftdi")
-flashrom.o: flashrom.c .features
- $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) -c -o $@ $< $(SVNDEF)
%.o: %.c .features
- $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@ $(SVNDEF)
- $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(FEATURE_CFLAGS) $(SVNDEF) -o $@ -c $<
clean: rm -f $(PROGRAM) *.o
Ah, more simple flashrom things that even i understand...
Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen libv@skynet.be
Why am i seeing your patches double in your emails? Np for small ones, but for a big patch, seeing it double might be confusing.
Luc Verhaegen.
On 23.06.2009 13:40, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:55PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
The makefile rules for %.o and flashrom.o are identical. Let %.o handle flashrom.o as well.
Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen libv@skynet.be
Thanks, committed in r626.
Why am i seeing your patches double in your emails? Np for small ones, but for a big patch, seeing it double might be confusing.
Some developers use Gmail and it seems Gmail mangles inline patches and doesn't display attached patches automatically. So the inline version if for reviewing and the attached version is for applying. If that problem doesn't exist anymore, I'll gladly skip attaching the patches and send them inline only.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:51:06PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.06.2009 13:40, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:55PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
The makefile rules for %.o and flashrom.o are identical. Let %.o handle flashrom.o as well.
Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen libv@skynet.be
Thanks, committed in r626.
Why am i seeing your patches double in your emails? Np for small ones, but for a big patch, seeing it double might be confusing.
Some developers use Gmail and it seems Gmail mangles inline patches and doesn't display attached patches automatically. So the inline version if for reviewing and the attached version is for applying. If that problem doesn't exist anymore, I'll gladly skip attaching the patches and send them inline only.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Oh, trusty old mutt here, with the setup i use, happily includes text attachments in the reply, and it nicely scrolls from the end of the actual mail straight into the attachment.
So I'd rather not see an inlined patch, and prefer just the attachment.
You are aiding the people that are unable to deal with text attachments properly, but at the same time you are hurting those who do have that ability. Which of those two setups is "broken", and which of those are you spending some extra time on?
Luc Verhaegen.
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Luc Verhaegen