Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:09:18 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r286995 - head/share/mk Message-ID: <41CC999A-9D05-4303-AAF8-ADFB56CD7D99@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150923062541.GH16800@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201508211515.t7LFFM0U028322@repo.freebsd.org> <56023395.2080904@FreeBSD.org> <20150923062541.GH16800@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 23:25, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:07:33PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 8/21/15 8:15 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >>> Author: imp >>> Date: Fri Aug 21 15:15:22 2015 >>> New Revision: 286995 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286995 >>>=20 >>> Log: >>> Document bsd.progs.mk, including its status as being strongly >>> discouraged and that it will be going away as soon as is practicable. >>>=20 >>> Modified: >>> head/share/mk/bsd.README >>=20 >> I find this functionality irreplaceable for simplicity. The alternative >> is more Makefiles for simple extra progs. Granted it has meta mode >> dirdeps issues but I think that is acceptable as there are other ways to >> address that. >>=20 >> Where is this deprecation coming from? Is it just due to bapt's >> in-progress (but not working) patch at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3444 >> to remove bsd.progs.mk in place of PROGS in bsd.prog.mk? >>=20 >> I would like to document PROGS properly. I had no idea how it worked >> until reading over it tonight. If the plan wasn't to remove PROGS itself >> I will do so. > This is the exact opposite. >=20 > the review comes from the fact that bsd.progs.mk is broken.and has not be f= ixed > for a while. The brokenness comes from the fact it is including magically > bsd.prog.mk multiple times, the easiy to see brokenness is the fact that > everything defining FILES/SCRIPTS and other magic macros that bsd.prog.mk a= ccept > via it multiple inputs will be reinstalled multiple times, one can fix tho= se by > exhaustively adding overwrites of every single macros, but hat would be re= ally > tedious each time one of the thing included in bsd.prog.mk get modified or= added >=20 > You can easily see that for all the bsd.tests.mk. >=20 > While I do really like the fonctionnality it is very complicticated to get= it > working. >=20 > My work in progress version is eaily fixable by adding: > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2003-June/000906.html >=20 > And extending the above for LDFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. >=20 > Which had been rejected in the past multiple times :( >=20 > The subject came back again > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2010-September/010613.htm= l >=20 > I think D3444 would be a good excuse to bring back the idea of perfiles sp= ecific > FLAGS. But I didn't want to wake up dead subject noone agreed on. I have some work in perforce that was largely tested, but the impact was "hi= gh" and bsd.progs.mk filled the gap, but it has a lot of gaps with bsd.prog.= mk (it's bsd.prog.mk with some assembly required type issues and the way bsd= .test.mk uses it is like putting a square peg in a round hole). I have other= work in svn I've been doing to fix it, but with work/life the way it is, I h= ave not incredibly motivated to follow through with it. Whatever's done though should probably leverage the tests I wrote up in perf= orce. There were a bunch of them that are worth capturing and using as "requ= irements" for PROGS in bsd.progs.mk.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41CC999A-9D05-4303-AAF8-ADFB56CD7D99>