Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:03:08 -0800 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, brooks@freebsd.org, sjg@juniper.net Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch Message-ID: <20140123210308.0E1D65807E@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[+brooks]
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:53:31 -0800, Garrett Cooper writes:
> Here=92s the working patch. The difference between this one and =
>the prior version is that you have to explicitly override -DNO_TESTS =
>when building lib/atf* (Simon: do you have any comments?):
Not crazy about frobbing ${MAKE}
>
>-.if ${MK_TESTS} !=3D "no"
>+.if defined(WITH_ATF) || ${MK_TESTS} !=3D "no"
>+# Make sure WITH_ATF overrules -DNO_TESTS
>+.if !defined(WITH_ATF)
>+MAKE+=3D -DWITH_ATF
>+.endif
Would it make sense to have ATF or TESTS depend on the other?
As is that can't be done, since one cannot always safely include
bsd.own.mk from the tree.
I'd really like to see the WITH[OUT]_ processing separated to its own
makefile (I use options.mk) so that it can always be safely used - even
with an option list specific to a given makefile.
The semantics in bsd.own.mk are quite broken and result in a lot of complex
dancing to keep things working.
>
> I unrolled most of the local changes to Makefile.inc1 on my =
>github fork so it=92ll be easier to spot if you diff it against my tree.
>Thanks!
>-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140123210308.0E1D65807E>