Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:15:02 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, brooks@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch Message-ID: <7CB7D14F-7848-46B7-AB85-7E16145268D9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140123221142.814FC5807E@chaos.jnpr.net> References: <B4D2A908-715F-484F-8028-A1F38884AF3F@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2jQ24JCR2Ct8YKob4MKcHWMhVVv5XG-1usoPWqEOA2OQg@mail.gmail.com> <4A3E3984-73D3-4441-97A7-D58679EFF978@gmail.com> <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> <20140123210308.0E1D65807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <EBDCAEEC-9485-4EA5-AA60-943EA70A3171@gmail.com> <20140123215430.4B7B15807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <8D80A156-F649-4CA1-846A-DBAE9CC30627@gmail.com> <20140123221142.814FC5807E@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> wrote: >>> For options.mk I allow MK_* to already be set and WITHOUT_* to take >>> precedence over WITH_*. I also allow makefiles to have their own =3D >> lists >>> of options - separate the policy from the mechanism. >>=20 >> Would that fix this case though? >=20 > I imagine it would make fixing it easier. >=20 >>> I guess you could even allow a per-knob setting as to which takes >>> precedence.=3D20 >>=20 >> You mean override the default so WITH_* overrides WITHOUT_*? >=20 > Yes - I expect that would be rare, but worth it for completness. > The important thing is a simple precidence rule. >=20 >>> By simply allowing WITHOUT_* to overrule WITH_*, the Makefile.inc1 =3D= >> usage >>> would be greatly simplified. >>=20 >> Maybe=3D85 the -DNO_* logic is a bit messy=3D85 >=20 > NO_* always wins, it allows a makefile to say "I don't care what you > want I cannot do that". >=20 > Most places you see -DNO_* used could be -DWITHOUT_* if the semantics > were not broken as previously described. > NO_* should be mainly for makefiles to set - like NO_MAN=3D (i don't = got > no man page man) >=20 >> Curious to see what you have in mind :).. >=20 > Look at contrib/bmake/Makefile Ok, I=92ll definitely look at that. Alan, As far as fixing your issue is concerned though, has a fix already been = committed or does one still need to be committed? If the latter, does = this suffice for today =97 with the intent that it will get ripped out = in favor of something cleaner in the [near] future? Thanks! -Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7CB7D14F-7848-46B7-AB85-7E16145268D9>