Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 13:24:23 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, <src-committers@freebsd.org>, <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, <svn-src-stable@freebsd.org>, <svn-src-stable-10@freebsd.org>, <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r300233 - stable/10/share/mk Message-ID: <98188.1464553463@kaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <0cbb531c-7403-b38a-2f28-103a7a1e88aa@FreeBSD.org> References: <201605192141.u4JLfZEM020505@repo.freebsd.org> <3bc44b60-2f25-011d-c423-a06f57b05bd7@freebsd.org> <0cbb531c-7403-b38a-2f28-103a7a1e88aa@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > I always assumed there was a good reason for not allowing that.
> > is there not a "WITH_FOO" or "WITHOUT_FOO" for every MK_FOO?
>
> Which takes precedence? Using make MK_FOO=no allows forcing it off
WITHOUT_ wins this was topic of long discussion - I guess back in 2014
;-)
The original semantics of {MK_,WITH[OUT]_} were almost unusable,
they are at least now consistently predictable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98188.1464553463>