From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Apr 10 17:09:22 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 1E00E2C3006 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48zPcx5LvZz4JMB for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B5C282C3005; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:21 +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 B582A2C3004 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48zPcw30ycz4JM9 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id w29so1542333qtv.3 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:09:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MUpaO0XcVRV4yaYEg3xRMHg/MhinHtYtBtNx+xl9bO0=; b=Ew3318E2cA3hF1Pes9W97OWUIoasVgoUpXM0C0eFHfqhl7TIMFUC28+mv1VyiW6Mo6 m/FxHu3TQWE/TwYh/CGnox/yBQu0KCKvlqElZx4YtxhTsB+M3Le7EEHUm8CHINFDOrLH FKEBUPY7a4t3Yr3wz0uxbgjvF7UWTZ2RMIB2CEvA2Wm31fXcblaZzrEO3DlF6g3bZpfN gt06xorTFjqgoyd4exFYgTkSJb69J4FKt7KaVUsBG5hUnkLyjqF7yWAC9x1Blu0E28DY sbRXSsaplRNe52MVYlhGemVo2BfwqLR4lmNCMzNY354EZ339fKBs4hVVacE2q33mQOa8 6dDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MUpaO0XcVRV4yaYEg3xRMHg/MhinHtYtBtNx+xl9bO0=; b=INl4zGWBhlRRswGWr5n9Kff91Zd5jOcv52RRpysDO0NbRnsI/DZdciqS9WFYkWjOqE n+wVnBRffGiAKSd5NOYzSMoEpjaxqJhmV4KYTsxdx37DiVncFP/vBE7cdCvpmNp2aemR Uvq+v26Tn0/Lgo9WsLELLCp3/Jf52krPI8PBtehT96VSJQWq2qRX+W9fB65rKxxHcIHk TV0sB4BrM93qmJiPvjUG3Ngrbgu74p0cWUI+TNkalVai3mMkcJVWWCfEGuoix03kwrVQ 79CBTEa9MoNEh8ut59WP99e/y9Ch//47RX6aSGWMsxuHn9m5VZsgX7BxrTkU1AvL0AUA xzdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ9A/gRRa9iQB7Op1HEiNoI7xFuGeYhtf3e4DMdUN8htRH7m0YR tIUSaPTS97/stoRBjKLX7u6NdkQEIW60su4EigVo7Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJgVJHWNllBPxXl++Ik7m8mGw6/ciqF/9RM+zOEt/9NjIsbM3wZmrBFm91T3g8bqbkExT8a5sQzlbgrVykVTr8= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1206:: with SMTP id x6mr131757qti.291.1586538559024; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:09:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <89524.1586501879@critter.freebsd.dk> <202004101645.03AGjD23016478@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <202004101645.03AGjD23016478@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:09:08 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: buildkernel failure because ctfconvert not installed To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Yuri Pankov , =?UTF-8?Q?Trond_Endrest=C3=B8l?= , Gary Jennejohn , FreeBSD Current X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48zPcw30ycz4JM9 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=Ew3318E2; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::835) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.01 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[current@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[5.3.8.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; IP_SCORE(-2.01)[ip: (-9.26), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-0.33), asn: 15169(-0.43), country: US(-0.05)]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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 17:09:22 -0000 On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:45 AM Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > -------- > > 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 > It's either -DWITH_FOO or -DWITHOUT_FOO. yes or no never enters into it. > > >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... > It took 20 years for someone to notice. If it takes 20 years to be astonished, I suspect that it comes close to 'least' by any sane measure. > 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. > We've literally ignored the value for the last 20 years or so (we started in the 4.x time frame). This is the first time it's come up. It's hard to make a convincing POLA argument based on this data. We specifically ignored it because we had crazy s*** in the tree like NOSHARED=no meaning something. And it wasn't quite the something you'd think it would mean without careful study (it meant do link this shared, which is straight forward enough. But it didn't mean do create this library as shared). > > Obviously negative values ("false", "no") should either be reported as > > errors or preferably be respected. > You can't make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Also, turns out it's trickier to "fix" than you might think. We almost certainly are not going to change this. Why aren't we going to change it? It took 20 years for someone to complain and it may break currently working scripts that rely on the documented behavior of the variable being defined to define WITH_FOO=n for some crazy reason. And this isn't a theoretical example, I know of at least two build systems that define WITH_FOO or WITHOUT_FOO to some value. Also, does WITHOUT_FOO=no mean "I don't want foo"? or "I don't not want foo?" So if you don't do it for WITHOUT but do to it for WITH, you wind up with another mess of inconsistency, or you wind up getting close to have NOSHARED=no again. Warner