Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:30:00 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.own.mk - just let WITHOUT_* take precedence Message-ID: <20121024173000.141CB58094@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <18C71853-5C11-4979-BE0D-37E8E4535031@bsdimp.com> 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> <18C71853-5C11-4979-BE0D-37E8E4535031@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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. That's what I thought. >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... The issue is that buildworld uses -DNO_CTF etc (-DWITHOUT_CTF wouldn't make any difference btw) which causes WITHOUT_CTF to be set, which then causes an error if WITH_CTF is set in the environment. My original proposal was to deal with this by simply letting WITHOUT_* take precedence over WITH_*. The counter proposal was to instead leverage NO_*. >> Would that be a step forwards or backwards? > >I think it would be a step forwards. The question was about undeprecating NO_*, based on your other comments, I guess you mean backwards? Mind you, it can make sense for WITH_, WITHOUT_ and NO_ to coexist. WITH* represent user preferences, whereas NO_* represents inability to support something. Thanks --sjg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121024173000.141CB58094>