Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:05:12 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTF patch for testing/review Message-ID: <20100322.130512.864843819464264610.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <201003220941.10525.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net> <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com>
M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
: In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net>
: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes:
: : Normally we use MK_xxx for things which are opt-in/opt-out. What about
: : using MK_xxx instead of ENABLE_CTF? If people are in favour of MK_xxx,
: : what should the xxx part look like?
:
: Normally we *TEST* MK_XXX for things which are opt-in/opt-out and
: require the user to say WITH_XXX or WITHOUT_XXX if they don't like the
: default (or want to ensure they get option XXX, even if we turn it off
: by default in the future). The default then gets encoded in
: bsd.own.mk, and permeates the FreeBSD build system since we include
: that everywhere, directly or indirectly.
:
: The problem is that bsd.own.mk is not included in sys.mk, nor should
: it be. That's why we have the hacky combination of WITH_CTF and
: NO_CTF that's there today.
:
: : Is bsd.kern.mk included in module builds too?
:
: Yes.
One last thing I should have said was that the patch that was posted
earlier in the thread looked ok, and likely couldn't be made
significantly better due to the bsd.own.mk issue.
Warner
P.S. Sorry for the lame followup to my own post.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100322.130512.864843819464264610.imp>