[Skiboot] [PATCH 4/5] external: Create shared rules.mk

[Stewart Smith]

Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> writes:
> Building a dynamically linked pflash will need the shared library
> name.  Export it here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com>
> ---
>  external/shared/Makefile | 9 ++++-----
>  external/shared/rules.mk | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 external/shared/rules.mk
>
> diff --git a/external/shared/Makefile b/external/shared/Makefile
> index b96c662..c643666 100644
> --- a/external/shared/Makefile
> +++ b/external/shared/Makefile
> @@ -1,13 +1,12 @@
>  .DEFAULT_GOAL := all
>  GET_ARCH = ../../external/common/get_arch.sh
>  include ../../external/common/rules.mk
> +include rules.mk
>  
>  PREFIX ?= /usr/local/
>  LIBDIR = $(PREFIX)/lib
>  INCDIR = $(PREFIX)/include/libflash
>  
> -VERSION = $(shell ../../make_version.sh)
> -
>  ifneq ($(ARCH), ARCH_ARM)
>  CFLAGS += -m64
>  endif
> @@ -30,11 +29,11 @@ distclean: clean
>  	rm -f ccan libflash common
>  
>  all: links arch_links $(OBJS)
> -	$(CC) -shared -Wl,-soname,libflash.so -o libflash.so.$(VERSION) $(OBJS)
> +	$(CC) -shared -Wl,-soname,libflash.so -o $(SHARED_NAME) $(OBJS)
>  
>  install-lib: all
> -	install -D -m 0755 libflash.so.$(VERSION) $(LIBDIR)/libflash.so.$(VERSION)
> -	ln -sf libflash.so.$(VERSION) $(LIBDIR)/libflash.so
> +	install -D -m 0755 $(SHARED_NAME) $(LIBDIR)/$(SHARED_NAME)
> +	ln -sf $(SHARED_NAME) $(LIBDIR)/libflash.so
>  
>  install-dev: links arch_links
>  	mkdir -p $(INCDIR)
> diff --git a/external/shared/rules.mk b/external/shared/rules.mk
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a4976a1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/external/shared/rules.mk
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +SHARED_NAME=libflash.so.$(shell ../../make_version.sh)

This ends up doing the rather strange thing of:
libflash.so.skiboot-5.2.2-83-g1e3b87e5b17e

which isn't what a soname should really be... and it all makes me want
to finally convert all the non-firmware bits to autotools....

that being said, your patch doesn't actually introduce that behavior,
so, merged as of 45e5481 with an appropriate amount of grumbling about
custom written makefiles nearly always being a bad idea.

-- 
Stewart Smith
OPAL Architect, IBM.