Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:27:36 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk sys.mk' Message-ID: <20010220212736.A45166@mollari.cthul.hu> In-Reply-To: <200102210521.f1L5Lds04947@billy-club.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102211415050.25100-100000@besplex.bde.org> <200102210521.f1L5Lds04947@billy-club.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102211415050.25100-100000@besplex.bde.org> Bruce Evans writes:
> : I have changed my mind a bit about this. MACHINE_CPU is not (yet?) nearly
> : as fundamental as the other MACHINE_* variables. It is currently just
> : a build option for libcrypto, so it could be handled like other build
> : options.
>
> So are you saying we should just toss a MACHINE_CPU ?= ${MACHINE_ARCH}
> in /etc/defaults/make.conf and be done with it. If we did this, with
> a sys.mk transition period, we'd solve the long term problem of too
> many things in sys.mk while still allowing for this to move forward.
Well, it's not ?= ${MACHINE_ARCH} because on the alpha it should be
(at least) 'ev4'. You'd need to stick the current logic from sys.mk
in /etc/make.conf or some other universally-used makefile --
personally I don't care where it ends up as long as it works.
.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386"
MACHINE_CPU ?= i386
.elif ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "alpha"
MACHINE_CPU ?= ev4
.endif
Kris
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6k1HIWry0BWjoQKURAuxGAJ9LPynlqT0zQn1TUcGImkk99QxlzQCfUyFT
Y37t3L7h06yXdnDJ7ndUtCI=
=B26M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010220212736.A45166>