Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:44 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, benno@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [Optionally] build tests with buildworld Message-ID: <1D2E12CF-08F2-4151-AB33-84C4270CFBC6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130423165958.GA91607@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <CAGHfRMCTRM4sFS09jLp3DegJ5U0xujHmaw0YuAW1JTOuTqHGaw@mail.gmail.com> <20130423165958.GA91607@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Brooks! On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:17:50PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Hi arch@ and toolchain@, >> One of the items that I'm proposing be added to Makefile.inc1 in >> order to make building and installing tests on CURRENT (ATF and >> otherwise) is a build knob called TESTS_WITH_WORLD (the name can be >> modified), which allows me to build and install various tests on my >> git branch like the example ATF tests I produced, pjdfstest, some of >> the prove tests from tools/regression, etc (there are other >> outstanding changes, but this was the key one that I need feedback on >> just to be safe). >=20 > I don't understand way you don't use WITH_TESTS processed > through bsd.own.mk. You'd presumably have to add it to the list of > supported NO_* options for the bootstrap case, but that's trivial. = Then > you use could use normal MK_* variables. That would also let you use > WITH(OUT)_TESTS in individual directories and they would always work. >=20 > At a glance using WITHOUT_TESTS and NO_TEST internally would simplify > some of the special cases in your patch. This is something that I considered, but I wasn't sure that it was the = best route to go about things because I thought we were doing away/had = done away with most of the NO_* knobs (and unfortunately one cannot mix = and match WITH_* and WITHOUT_* because they're considered contradictory = according to bsd.own.mk -- something that Simon has debated against = having in the past). I'm all for doing that though because that would simplify things greatly = from an end-user perspective. > On a side note, I like the HMAKE change independent of the rest of the > patch. Cool! I'll polish up the patch with that piece and send it over to = benno@ :). Thanks! -Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1D2E12CF-08F2-4151-AB33-84C4270CFBC6>