Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:48:00 +0400 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: src.conf(5) seems to affect ports build Message-ID: <20061024134800.GB20819@rambler-co.ru> In-Reply-To: <20061022153436.GW53114@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20061020150848.GQ53114@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061020191332.GC59856@rambler-co.ru> <20061021162635.GS53114@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061021172533.GA69551@rambler-co.ru> <20061022153436.GW53114@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 05:34:36PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Ruslan,
>=20
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:25:33PM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > Also, your patch avoids performing the WITH(OUT)_* stuff for ports in
> > > order to prevent from polluting the namespace. If there is to be
> > > some WITH(OUT)_* knobs which leads to CFLAGS modification in the futu=
re
> > > (I'm thinking about ProPolice with the upcoming GCC 4.1), wouldn't it
> > > be worth benefiting this framework for ports ?
> >
> > It avoids only /etc/src.conf stuff when running bsd.port.mk; if you put
> > WITH(OUT)_* in /etc/make.conf it will still be picked up.
>=20
> Yes indeed, but MK_FOO won't be set and this would require to either
> duplicate the code that modifies CFLAGS, or at least test for MK_FOO
> or WITH_FOO at the same time.
>=20
> Let me show you an example.
>=20
> I have an additional <bsd.ssp.mk> that is included from both bsd.sys.mk
> and bsd.port.mk:
>=20
> % .if ${MK_SSP} !=3D "no"
> % SSP_CFLAGS ?=3D -fstack-protector
> % CFLAGS +=3D ${SSP_CFLAGS}
> % . if defined(WARNS) && ${WARNS} >=3D 7 && !empty(SSP_CFLAGS)
> % CWARNFLAGS +=3D -Wstack-protector
> % . endif
> % .endif
>=20
> Currently it is thus quite useful to use MK_SSP when this file is
> included from bsd.ports.mk. With your whole patch I would have to
> either duplicate these bits in bsd.ports.mk or turn the condition to
> something like:
>=20
> % .if (defined(MK_SSP) && ${MK_SSP} !=3D "no") || defined(WITH_SSP)
>=20
> What do you advice me to do ?
>=20
I still don't understand why my patch created a problem for you.
This option is not in bsd.own.mk, so it's not covered by my patch.
All my patch does is "don't process /etc/src.conf" which is entirely
for src/.
So, you can continue to use your bsd.ssp.mk as before, and my patch
shouldn't influence it.
If you want to really mimic the standard behavior, then bsd.ssp.mk
should check the (WITH|WITHOUT)_SSP set by a user, and set MK_SSP
to "yes/no", accordingly; setting MK_SSP by a user shouldn't be
allowed or supported. You then set WITH_SSP=3D in /etc/make.conf
(or in /etc/src.conf if you want it only for src/), or pass
-DWITH_SSP on the make command line, and you're done.
P.S. There has been a patch floating around that adds support for
/etc/ports.conf. That would allow for clear separation:
src.conf src/ only settings;
ports.conf ports/ only settings;
make.conf all-time settings, including when building
src/ and ports/.
Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov
ru@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFPhmQqRfpzJluFF4RAryIAJ9ZCa6ocrjaKQnOfbUBxs4CyL7LtACcDQl+
ieRRCJNJ2vUZQizv+gY3V5c=
=91uV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061024134800.GB20819>