Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:07:38 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.own.mk - just let WITHOUT_* take precedence Message-ID: <18C71853-5C11-4979-BE0D-37E8E4535031@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20121024161844.E8E5658094@chaos.jnpr.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> <20121024161844.E8E5658094@chaos.jnpr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Oct 24, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > 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_* ? NO_* is on its way out, so we should likely just fail for the NO_ options... In FreeBSD 6.x they were deprecated, so it isn't like there hasn't been warning. > 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? All of the WITH_FOO and WITHOUT_FOO ultimately make it to MK_FOO. Anything that's still using NO_FOO should be hastened out of the tree quickly... > Would that be a step forwards or backwards? I think it would be a step forwards. Warnerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18C71853-5C11-4979-BE0D-37E8E4535031>