From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug  5 20:50:49 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B9816A41F;
	Fri,  5 Aug 2005 20:50:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from haven.freebsd.dk (haven.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9FA43D49;
	Fri,  5 Aug 2005 20:50:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by haven.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B092DBC6B;
	Fri,  5 Aug 2005 20:50:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:39:02 EDT."
	<20050805203901.GA88453@xor.obsecurity.org> 
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:50:47 +0200
Message-ID: <22301.1123275047@phk.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: putting HESIOD, Appletalk and IPX on notice 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:50:49 -0000

In message <20050805203901.GA88453@xor.obsecurity.org>, Kris Kennaway writes:

>> Cool. I think the standard is "WANT_FOO", but that is a detail. It 
>> may be an idea to make these default to "off" in releases, but keep
>> them in HEAD until they become too painful to care about. That 
>> would probably handle the CYB factor the best.
>
>Ports uses WITH_*/WITHOUT_* for user control knobs, and WANT_* is for
>internal port use only.

I can see a benefit from being orthogonal to ports usage in this, so
I think the YES_FOO is actually the right thing.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.