From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 24 16:19:49 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A4940F; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:19:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sjg@juniper.net) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0428FC16; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIgVI856+ujjww3jF8Gp/XtI61N/CjIa@postini.com; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:19:48 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:45 -0700 Received: from chaos.jnpr.net (chaos.jnpr.net [172.24.29.229]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q9OGIjh60974; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sjg@juniper.net) Received: from chaos.jnpr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.jnpr.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E5658094; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Brooks Davis Subject: Re: bsd.own.mk - just let WITHOUT_* take precedence 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> Comments: In-reply-to: Brooks Davis message dated "Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:08 -0500." From: "Simon J. Gerraty" X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82+cvs; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 22.3.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20121024161844.E8E5658094@chaos.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:19:49 -0000 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?