Re: RFC: checkflist extra prefixes and post-build hooks

[Christoph Badura <bad%bsd.de@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 09:49:18PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:06:06 +0200
>     From:        Christoph Badura <bad%bsd.de@localhost>
>     Message-ID:  <20250409120605.GR27542%irregular-apocalypse.k.bsd.de@localhost>
> 
>   | The first one adds a way to tell checkflist to ignore extra or missing
>   | files in the destdir through the mk.conf variable
> 
> Missing files is a bug somewhere, that should never be ignored, but
> fixed instead.

Unless I specifically removed them, of course.

Anyway, the point is (currently) moot.  I was thinking out loud when I
wrote that sentence, trying to come up with possible uses.  I don't
actually had a reason to remove files yet.  And the change doesn't deal
with intentionally removed files.

That part of checkflist functionality remains unchanged, the missing files
are still warned about.

> Extra files happens whenever DISTDIR is an existing
> system (previously built) and includes all the stuff that needs to be
> added to go from a straight build to something workable (including all
> of /dev/* of course).   Ignoring those in such a build is entirely
> reasonable, but build.sh already has -e to do that, I don't think
> extra mechanism is needed for it.

build.sh has no "-e" option.  At least I don't see it greping the source.

One of the points of the change is to provide explicit feedback about
which files are extraneous but explicitly intended to be so.

>   | The second one runs the executables listed in the POST_BUILD_HOOKS mk.conf
>   | variable after the do-build and do-obsolete targets.
> 
> Why can't that just be done in a script that you run which runs build.sh ?

That doesn't get me access to the environemnt variables set up by build.sh
and exported by make.

--chris