[Buildroot] [PATCH 09/25 v6] docs/manual: do not hardcode name of the generated document

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> schreef:
>Thomas, All,
>
>On 2014-09-29 21:33 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
>[--SNIp--]
>> > -                       "to generate the manual"; \
>> > +                       "to generate a document"; \
>> Nit: I would write 'to generate documents' here.
>> > -               echo "You need w3m on your host to generate the manual"; \
>> > +               echo "You need w3m on your host to generate a document"; \
>> Same here.
>> > -               echo "You need dblatex on your host to generate the pdf manual"; \
>> > +               echo "You need dblatex on your host to generate a PDF document"; \
>> This would become 'to generate PDF documents'
>
>OK, I don;t mind. Will do.
>
>> > +$$(O)/docs/$(1)/$(1).$(5): $$($(call UPPERCASE,$(1))_SOURCES) \
>> 
>> I didn't mean to also change this uppercase call from $$ to $. The
>> 'exception' is until now only made when calling the inner infra from
>> the outer one. On this line, we are already in the inner infra so one
>> would use $$.
>
>But that does not matter, does it?
>
>The expansion of $(call UPPERCASE) is done on a parameter, so we might
>as well expand it right at call time, rather than at evaluation time,
>no?

Technically you're right. However, in the discussion
 on the dollars we realized that the matter is
 sufficiently non-obvious that we better use clear cut
 rules. That rule says that everything should be $$
 except for parameters, pkgname/pkgdir and the
 uppercase call from outer to inner. 

In this case, you understand the issue and judge that
 a single $ suffices, but tomorrow someone else will
 change the value and forget to reevaluate the dollars.

>
>> > +                          $(1)-check-dependencies \
>> > +                          $(1)-check-dependencies-$(4) \
>> > +                          $(1)-prepare-sources
>> > +       $$(Q)$$(call MESSAGE,"Generating $(6) $(1)...")
>> 
>> What is the purpose of the quotes here, given your recent commit of
>> qstrip in MESSAGE ?
>
>Because I looked at what was done in pkg-generic or some such, and
>mimicked. At which point someone noticed on the ML (or IRC) about the
>quoting issue, and I did not adapt my code.
>
>But it does not really matter: we can quote messages, now. Or not.

True. I don't understand though why we wouldn't
 change all unnecessary quoting in the quest for symmetry and simplicity.

Best regards,
Thomas