From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:10:59 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] system: add ability to pass additional
 users tables.
In-Reply-To: <20140327181915.GA4458@free.fr>
References: <1395937176-7585-1-git-send-email-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr>
 <1395937176-7585-2-git-send-email-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr>
 <20140327181915.GA4458@free.fr>
Message-ID: <20140328111056.GA28624@pc-eric>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hi!

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:19:15PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Eric, All,
>
[...]
>
> There is a discrepancy bewteen the description commit log and this help
> text, and the actual behaviour. The commit log and help text both
> explain this can be a space-separated list of files, but in the code you
> just treat it as if it were a unique file:
>
>     ifneq ($$(ROOTFS_USERS_TABLE),)
>         cat $$(ROOTFS_USERS_TABLE) > $(USERS_TABLE)
>     endif
>
> I think you should do something like:
>
>     $(foreach f,$$(ROOTFS_USERS_TABLE),cat $$(f) >>$(USERS_TABLE)$(sep))
In fact I use the same trick as for ROOTFS_DEVICE_TABLES: whether
ROOTFS_USERS_TABLE is 'foo' or 'foo bar quux', the invocation of `cat` is
valid, as `cat` takes a list of filenames as arguments. So no need to loop
on a list. Or is the loop preferred because of portability issues?

But it is true that I should use the plural form ROOTFS_USERS_TABLES.

Thanks for your review.

Best regards,
ELB