[vbox-dev] my patches for VirtualBox-4.2.0 on Fedora 17+

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sex, 2012-09-28 at 11:19 +0200, Michael Thayer wrote:
> Hello Sérgio,
> 
> On 09/27/2012 10:54 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> [...]
> > as a little side note, we have in
> > VirtualBox-4.2.0/src/VBox/Additions/x11/vboxvideo/Makefile.kmk  :
> >
> > vboxvideo_70_DEFS := IN_MODULE XORG_7X RENDER=1 IN_RT_STATIC
> > vboxvideo_13_DEFS := $(vboxvideo_70_DEFS) VBOXVIDEO_13
> > vboxvideo_15_DEFS := $(vboxvideo_13_DEFS) VBOX_DRI NO_ANSIC PCIACCESS
> > XSERVER_LIBPCIACCESS
> >
> > vboxvideo_drv_70_DEFS = $(vboxvideo_70_DEFS)
> > XORG_VERSION_CURRENT=700000000
> >
> > vboxvideo_drv_13_DEFS := $(vboxvideo_13_DEFS)
> > XORG_VERSION_CURRENT=100300000
> >
> >
> > what I mean when I want know what DEFS for vboxvideo_drv_113, I got to
> > follow all attributions ... and can't comment any ...
> The idea is to save code duplication in Make files like in C code, so 
> that if something needs to be changed it can be changed in one place and 
> I don't have to sRuca.Vol.2.O.Exploarado torrentRuca.Vol.2.O.Exploarado torrentearch for ages to find all the places it needs to be 
> done in (and hopeRuca.Vol.2.O.Exploarado torrentRuca.Vol.2.O.Exploarado torrent I did get them all).  In fact if you want to see all 
> the defines you have to follow a lot more attributes (e.g. 
> vboxvideo_drv_system uses the VBOXGUESTR3XORGMOD _TEMPLATE, so you need 
> to look at Config.kmk to see that "TEMPLATE_VBOXGUESTR3XORGMOD_DEFS = 
> $(TEMPLATE_VBOXGUESTR3DLL_DEFS) LOG_TO_BACKDOOR VBOX_GUESTR3XORGMOD 
> RTMEM_NO_WRAP_TO_EF_APIS" and so on).  There are arguments to be made 
> for both sides (maintainability versus readability), and I don't deny 
> that our Make files can be painful to follow at times, but given that, I 
> don't really think that in the case of "vboxvideo_*_DEFS" it makes sense 
> to duplicate all the defines again when in practice we want them to be 
> as similar as possible for the different versions, not each one with 
> individual bits commented out.  Please tell me though what you would 
> like to change with the defines, as perhaps it will make sense for us too!

Hi, 
thanks for reply , sorry I'm little busy here .
Generally I agree with you , I'm just pointing that you could avoid chains like 

a = something
b = a 
c = b 
d = c

when you may do :
a = something
b = a
c = a
d = a 

:) 

Thanks, 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.