Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:45:38 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Michael Dexter <editor@callfortesting.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WITHOUT_CASPER ghost? Message-ID: <Zdj14pj8vTKJpZj9@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <e021c9dd-f47a-4135-af2a-00b4092d511e@callfortesting.org> References: <8f2d4d8c-9c93-42be-b67b-2495cb027c8f@callfortesting.org> <ZdjSO4_CYSlAw10x@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <e021c9dd-f47a-4135-af2a-00b4092d511e@callfortesting.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:21:12AM -0800, Michael Dexter wrote: > On 2/23/24 9:13 AM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > Things are in a somewhat messy state. CASPER and CAPSICUM were moved to > > a new __REQUIRED_OPTIONS list, but the various bits still exist and > > there's even one use of MK_CASPER=no in Makefile.inc1. The commit > > message (c24c117b9644) suggests that the intent was to finish removal > > after 14 branched and it just hasn't happened yet. > > Understood. > > > I do wonder if the tool would also benefit from learning about > > __REQUIRED_OPTIONS. > > By required do you mean WITHOUT_AUTO_OBJ, WITHOUT_UNIFIED_OBJDIR, > WITHOUT_INSTALLLIB which I manually skip/mask my build option testing? >From bsd.mkopt.mk: # For each option FOO in __REQUIRED_OPTIONS, MK_FOO is set to "yes". If you set MK_FOO=no in a way that make can't override them (e.g., on the make command line) then the functionality is still there during the transition. It's probably a bug that we don't whine about this case like we do with WITHOUT_FOO. > If so, what syntax would use __REQUIRED_OPTIONS and what branches support it? __REQUIRED_OPTIONS isn't really a user accessible bit of machinery, but the survey should probably be aware of it. It looks like __REQUIRED_OPTIONS is in 14, but not 13. -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Zdj14pj8vTKJpZj9>