From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Apr 10 16:45:20 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257132C26D1 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48zP5C6g8yz4GyD for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id E4AE92C26D0; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46F12C26CF for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48zP5C0k8tz4GyC for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 03AGjD9G016479; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 03AGjD23016478; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202004101645.03AGjD23016478@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: buildkernel failure because ctfconvert not installed In-Reply-To: <89524.1586501879@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) CC: Yuri Pankov , =?UTF-8?Q?Trond_Endrest=C3=B8l?= , Gary Jennejohn , current@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48zP5C0k8tz4GyC X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.42 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.69)[-0.693,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.03)[ip: (0.13), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.06), asn: 13868(0.03), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.67)[-0.665,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[fastmail.com]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:45:20 -0000 > -------- > 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