[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 4 v2 for 2014.08] gendoc infra: use $(pkgname) instead of explicitly passing 'manual'

[Yann E. MORIN]

Thomas, All,

On 2014-08-13 09:43 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> schreef:
> >Thomas, All,
> >
> >On 2014-08-12 22:32 +0200, Yann E. MORIN spake thusly:
> >> On 2014-08-12 20:11 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
> >> > In the gendoc infrastructure, using an assignment of the form
> >> >     FOO = docs/$(1)/bar
> >> > inside GENDOC_INNER does not work as expected: the $(1) value is empty here
> >> > and the value of FOO becomes 'docs//bar'.
> >> > 
> >> > Parameters $(2), $(3), etc. do not have this problem. The specific thing
> >> > about $(1) is that it is a parameter to GENDOC itself (indicating the
> >> > document to create) and passed transparently to GENDOC_INNER.
> >> > 
> >> > This is different from the package infrastructures, where $(1) is set from
> >> > $(pkgname). In fact, the same strategy could be used by the gendoc
> >> > infrastructure as well, as $(pkgname) resolves to 'manual' for file
> >> > docs/manual/manual.mk. This has the advantage that the described problem
> >> > does not occur.
> >> > 
> >> > Note that this means that if we want to use the same GENDOC infrastructure
> >> > for another document, it will have to reside in a separate directory than
> >> > the manual.
> >> 
> >> This breaks generating the manual:
> >> 
> >>     $ make manual-html
> >>     make: *** No rule to make target `manual-html'.  Stop.
> >>     $ make manual
> >>     make: *** No rule to make target `manual'.  Stop.
> >
> >That's because $(pkgname) returns empty, because $(pkgdir) returns
> >empty, because I do not have a .config file.
> >
> >So, before this patch, it was possible to build the manual from a
> >pristine Buildroot tree; now it is no longer possible.
> >
> >I think that's bad.
> 
> Agreed. The problem is that pkg-utils.mk is only
> included when a config file is present.
> Based on this, I see three possibilities:
> 
> 1. Include pkg-utils.mk unconditionally from Makefile
>  (currently included from package/Makefile.in)
> 
> 2. Move the definition of pkgname and pkgdir to
>  Makefile (outside the check on the config file)
> 
> 3. Don't use pkgname/pkgdir for the manual
>  generation rules, and try to solve the issue with $1 on
>  a different way (I feel double dollar signs coming up
>  somewhere...)

I think option 1 is the best.

As far as I cn see, the only parts of pkg-utils that need a .config are
the INFLATE.XXX variables. The rest of the file can well live outside of
the HAS_DOT_CONFIG conditional.

But the same can be said of most other pkg-*.mk files that define
package infrastructures: the definitions in themselves do not need a
.config, not even the build rules in pkg-generic.mk.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'