Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263777AbTETPXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2003 11:23:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263818AbTETPXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2003 11:23:30 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:11532 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263777AbTETPXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2003 11:23:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:33:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Kai Germaschewski cc: Brian Gerst , Sam Ravnborg , Linus Torvalds , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update fs Makefiles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 945 Lines: 26 Hi, On Tue, 20 May 2003, Kai Germaschewski wrote: > > >>-adfs-objs := dir.o dir_f.o dir_fplus.o file.o inode.o map.o super.o > > >>+adfs-y := dir.o dir_f.o dir_fplus.o file.o inode.o map.o super.o > > > > > > > > > > Why have two methods of doing the same thing? foo-y is clearly the > > preferred method because it is easy to work with conditionals. > > I tend to agree, though I don't feel strongly about it. Having two > different methods of expressing the same thing will always be confusing. Has the new syntax any advantage, e.g. does it make sense to have adfs-m? Otherwise the -obj syntax looks IMO more readable and it directly says that this is a composite object. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/