Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Yuri Pankov <ypankov@fastmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Trond_Endrest=C3=B8l?= <trond.endrestol@ximalas.info>, Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: buildkernel failure because ctfconvert not installed Message-ID: <202004101645.03AGjD23016478@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <89524.1586501879@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> --------
> In message <9f03fb79-a0ad-3c11-9a50-bc7731882da9@fastmail.com>, Yuri Pankov writes:
> >Trond Endrest?l wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:56+0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, I figured it out.
> >>>
> >>> I used to have MK_CTF=no in src.conf, but I recently changed it to
> >>> WITH_CTF=no.
> >>
> >> It's either WITH_xxx=yes or WITHOUT_xxx=yes.
> >
> >Or even WITH_xxx= or WITHOUT_xxx=, src.conf(5) explicitly states that
> >value is NOT checked:
> >
> >The values of variables are ignored regardless of their setting; even if
> > they would be set to "FALSE" or "NO". The presence of an option
> >causes it to be honored by make(1).
>
> That is not even close to POLA-compliance...
I am not a fan of it either, not sure when this idea came about
of doing WITH_ and WITHOUT and ignoring the set value, but it
is very non POLA given how many variables we do have with set values.
>
> Obviously negative values ("false", "no") should either be reported as
> errors or preferably be respected.
>
> PS: [This is not the bikeshed you are looking for]
BLUE!
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
--
Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202004101645.03AGjD23016478>