Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:23:40 +0100 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Subject: Re: src.conf(5) seems to affect ports build Message-ID: <1161703420.16172.23.camel@mayday.esat.net> In-Reply-To: <20061024134800.GB20819@rambler-co.ru> 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> <20061024134800.GB20819@rambler-co.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-7CmOY925DK8Sg1yeLPjd
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 17:48 +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> 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 fu=
ture
> > > > (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 p=
ut
> > > 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/.
>=20
> So, you can continue to use your bsd.ssp.mk as before, and my patch
> shouldn't influence it.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> P.S. There has been a patch floating around that adds support for
> /etc/ports.conf.
[...] that you sent :-)
Could try to revive the thread with a new patch.
--=20
Florent Thoumie
flz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Committer
--=-7CmOY925DK8Sg1yeLPjd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBFPi/8MxEkbVFH3PQRAq/fAJwKofNUNJvxFDjc7qVL4lh2E4o3ogCcDaxu
Lygtg3LRobEm1SLaJxsJTKk=
=IKaO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-7CmOY925DK8Sg1yeLPjd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1161703420.16172.23.camel>