Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:51 -0700 From: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch Message-ID: <CAOtMX2jiMJ5AZdmU%2BU6dv%2BfOLRiOY1c2fgBVSpzaTM1tqvL41w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2hZKUvOF6mUcFCzZAp-YkKbwkPJNcH1H5yVcDOuWtkvpA@mail.gmail.com> References: <B4D2A908-715F-484F-8028-A1F38884AF3F@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2jQ24JCR2Ct8YKob4MKcHWMhVVv5XG-1usoPWqEOA2OQg@mail.gmail.com> <4A3E3984-73D3-4441-97A7-D58679EFF978@gmail.com> <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> <20140123210308.0E1D65807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <EBDCAEEC-9485-4EA5-AA60-943EA70A3171@gmail.com> <20140123215430.4B7B15807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <8D80A156-F649-4CA1-846A-DBAE9CC30627@gmail.com> <20140123221142.814FC5807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <7CB7D14F-7848-46B7-AB85-7E16145268D9@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2hZKUvOF6mUcFCzZAp-YkKbwkPJNcH1H5yVcDOuWtkvpA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> w= rote: >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> 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 go= t >>> no man page man) >>> >>>> Curious to see what you have in mind :).. >>> >>> Look at contrib/bmake/Makefile >> >> Ok, I=92ll definitely look at that. >> >> Alan, >> >> As far as fixing your issue is concerned though, has a fix already been = committed or does one still need to be committed? If the latter, does this = suffice for today =97 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 Works for me. Do you want me to commit it for you? > >> >> Thanks! >> -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2jiMJ5AZdmU%2BU6dv%2BfOLRiOY1c2fgBVSpzaTM1tqvL41w>