Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:44 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.own.mk - just let WITHOUT_* take precedence Message-ID: <20121024161844.E8E5658094@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <20121024154508.GA93546@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20121007001423.9878F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121008154853.GC23400@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20121022193903.GA88336@dragon.NUXI.org> <20121024154508.GA93546@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:08 -0500, Brooks Davis writes: >> Have you had a chance to review Simon's latest diff? > >Yes it's fine if the problem we want to solve is being able to set >WITH_FOO and WITHOUT_FOO. I'm not sure we don't really just want to let >WITH_FOO be overridden by NO_FOO more reliably. That can work too, except the comments in bsd.own.mk indicated a desire to deprecate NO_* ? Since WITH_FOO could be in the environment you cannot simply .undef it and set WITHOUT_FOO when NO_* is seen - which is the cause of the errors. To be consistent, you need to test for NO_* pretty much everywhere that I was checking for WITHOUT_* - the two basically become synonymous. Thus all the logic for setting WITHOUT_* based on NO_* should be removed? Would that be a step forwards or backwards?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121024161844.E8E5658094>