Add BUILD.gn for libflac.

Add BUILD.gn for libflac.

All hail GN. oRZ

BUG=none
R=brettw@chromium.org

Committed: 266977

[brettw, 2014-04-29 21:35:41]

Can you hook it up to the root build file?

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn
File BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode53
BUILD.gn:53: config("flac_config") {
I'd put this at the top, usually they wouldn't be nested.

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode85
BUILD.gn:85: # Local Variables:
I don't think we want this in all of the build files.

[awong, 2014-04-29 21:43:45]

On 2014/04/29 21:35:41, brettw wrote:
> Can you hook it up to the root build file?

I did, but it's in a different repo.

> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn
> File BUILD.gn (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode53
> BUILD.gn:53: config("flac_config") {
> I'd put this at the top, usually they wouldn't be nested.
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode85
> BUILD.gn:85: # Local Variables:
> I don't think we want this in all of the build files.

[awong, 2014-04-29 21:43:52]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn
File BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode53
BUILD.gn:53: config("flac_config") {
On 2014/04/29 21:35:41, brettw wrote:
> I'd put this at the top, usually they wouldn't be nested.

Huh... I misunderstood the style guide. Moved.

Should declarations like this even be allowed to be nested?  That's just
confusing if :flac can name a :flac_config that's lexically subordinate to
:flac.

Also, is it worth name-mangling "flac_" int the config name? It's already scoped
by //third_party/flac:....

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode85
BUILD.gn:85: # Local Variables:
On 2014/04/29 21:35:41, brettw wrote:
> I don't think we want this in all of the build files.

It's in a bunch of the gyp files...happy to take it out, but at some point it'd
be nice to have good .vim and .emacs settings.

[awong, 2014-04-29 21:46:05]

FYI, root BUILD.gn change here:
  https://codereview.chromium.org/263503003/



On 2014/04/29 21:43:52, awong wrote:
> PTAL
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn
> File BUILD.gn (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode53
> BUILD.gn:53: config("flac_config") {
> On 2014/04/29 21:35:41, brettw wrote:
> > I'd put this at the top, usually they wouldn't be nested.
> 
> Huh... I misunderstood the style guide. Moved.
> 
> Should declarations like this even be allowed to be nested?  That's just
> confusing if :flac can name a :flac_config that's lexically subordinate to
> :flac.
> 
> Also, is it worth name-mangling "flac_" int the config name? It's already
scoped
> by //third_party/flac:....
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode85
> BUILD.gn:85: # Local Variables:
> On 2014/04/29 21:35:41, brettw wrote:
> > I don't think we want this in all of the build files.
> 
> It's in a bunch of the gyp files...happy to take it out, but at some point
it'd
> be nice to have good .vim and .emacs settings.

[brettw, 2014-04-29 21:47:10]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn
File BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/254083004/diff/1/BUILD.gn#newcode53
BUILD.gn:53: config("flac_config") {
Yeah, I'm thinking we should disallow nesting but haven't done it.

I think "flac_config" because plain "config" looks weird to me and sometimes
you'll add more later and should have unique names.

[awong, 2014-04-29 21:47:43]

The CQ bit was checked by ajwong@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-29 21:50:09]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-29 21:50:10]

Commit queue rejected this change because it did not recognize the base URL.
Please commit your change manually.

[awong, 2014-04-29 22:19:20]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r266977 (presubmit successful).

[Nico, 2014-08-02 00:21:16]

I noticed that DEPS wasn't updated after this went in – probably because it
didn't have an effect? In general, it's a good idea to always update DEPS so
that the next person trying to roll can be sure only their change is in the roll
they want to make. (In this case, I'll just roll this in too as it looks
harmless.)