From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 23 22:21:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84DEE16A; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E6D12F8; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:21:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x12so2190800wgg.13 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:21:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=px5wLFP+3kUEGZuZYJZCIbNKzTBRIR0Yx5b7tsD/ISM=; b=SfWOsdYOXz5rb8zCLhU5xu0OowiJKv9jsSUFZ+gJbJ3HPfXp4KdGLOudjJAMuTZEbC UABs42U7Y0OUg2ltb4l5h6WNVgiEsKB7txdLVSGK2yWOkGdi5kyNI7BS2KMmmdYVeEvL XeJF0ZArgMT0UjsRoqO3I9fbki0ZKB6n8kLdBFOqwHOd8PQjcq1xz8xTjT9P/SwmJYCx aCQ1qQjW2WLpU5sHmeGvjEjXkW4s1e2+znhCjcrsmEIaETjt7ZQpiy0R7Vaty53KleIG uLtnHqKcL3MZuzrwip2wRN+5yAoIObJ9lOyDTZAXGuKwaT1D5MK+j/hZL3V+qLz7QJyv AZtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.76.168 with SMTP id l8mr918928wiw.40.1390515662264; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:21:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: asomers@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.22.35 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:21:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7CB7D14F-7848-46B7-AB85-7E16145268D9@gmail.com> References: <4A3E3984-73D3-4441-97A7-D58679EFF978@gmail.com> <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> <20140123210308.0E1D65807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140123215430.4B7B15807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <8D80A156-F649-4CA1-846A-DBAE9CC30627@gmail.com> <20140123221142.814FC5807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <7CB7D14F-7848-46B7-AB85-7E16145268D9@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:21:02 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bANUA9YFVYyWNhf2iPXKAF9K-NM Message-ID: Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch From: Alan Somers To: Garrett Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" , Brooks Davis , "Simon J. Gerraty" X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:21:04 -0000 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wro= te: > On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > >>>> For options.mk I allow MK_* to already be set and WITHOUT_* to take >>>> precedence over WITH_*. I also allow makefiles to have their own =3D >>> lists >>>> of options - separate the policy from the mechanism. >>> >>> Would that fix this case though? >> >> I imagine it would make fixing it easier. >> >>>> I guess you could even allow a per-knob setting as to which takes >>>> precedence.=3D20 >>> >>> You mean override the default so WITH_* overrides WITHOUT_*? >> >> Yes - I expect that would be rare, but worth it for completness. >> The important thing is a simple precidence rule. >> >>>> By simply allowing WITHOUT_* to overrule WITH_*, the Makefile.inc1 =3D >>> usage >>>> would be greatly simplified. >>> >>> Maybe=3D85 the -DNO_* logic is a bit messy=3D85 >> >> NO_* always wins, it allows a makefile to say "I don't care what you >> want I cannot do that". >> >> Most places you see -DNO_* used could be -DWITHOUT_* if the semantics >> were not broken as previously described. >> NO_* should be mainly for makefiles to set - like NO_MAN=3D (i don't got >> no man page man) >> >>> Curious to see what you have in mind :).. >> >> Look at contrib/bmake/Makefile > > Ok, I'll definitely look at that. > > Alan, > > As far as fixing your issue is concerned though, has a fix already been c= ommitted or does one still need to be committed? If the latter, does this s= uffice for today -- with the intent that it will get ripped out in favor of= something cleaner in the [near] future? Umm, I accidentally committed my earlier patch along with a different change today. Oops. I'm currently testing your latest patch. I'm happy with committing it if it works. -Alan > > Thanks! > -Garrett