Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 18:18:24 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Standardized make options (or no doesn't always mean no) Message-ID: <3D02ACE0.9DAB0822@mindspring.com> References: <20020608210159.B87326@espresso.q9media.com> <3D02AB11.F373AB4@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > Mike Barcroft wrote: > > Is anyone planning to do something about the hugely confusing state of > > NO/NO_ options? I can never remember which options have an underscore > > after the NO, so I end up writing commands like > > `make kernel ... NO_KERNELCLEAN=true NOKERNELCLEAN=true'. It would > > very nice if we could standardize this and add some compatibility > > shims for historical spellings. > > In the past versions of this conversation, the general agreement is that > going forward we should probably standardize on underscores to seperate > words. So, NO_FOO rather than NOFOO. However, no_volunteer has come > forward to do the work you've described, so if you're volunteering.... > :) How about "FOO=false" and "FOO=true" and "NO_FOO: undefined variable"? This whole "NO" prefix thing on booleans is pretty silly... but I guess someone will end up posting in it's defense... after all: "Ain't no way someone won't not don't do it" If "Makefile"'s were English papers, I think we would all fail. Personally, I prefer explicit negation, e.g. "KERNELCLEAN=false" to existance negation by prefix value. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D02ACE0.9DAB0822>