Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:11:42 -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 Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch Message-ID: <20140123221142.814FC5807E@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <8D80A156-F649-4CA1-846A-DBAE9CC30627@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> <20140123210308.0E1D65807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <EBDCAEEC-9485-4EA5-AA60-943EA70A3171@gmail.com> <20140123215430.4B7B15807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <8D80A156-F649-4CA1-846A-DBAE9CC30627@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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 = >lists >> of options - separate the policy from the mechanism. > >Would that fix this case though? I imagine it would make fixing it easier. >> I guess you could even allow a per-knob setting as to which takes >> precedence.=20 > >You mean override the default so WITH_* overrides WITHOUT_*? Yes - I expect that would be rare, but worth it for completness. The important thing is a simple precidence rule. >> By simply allowing WITHOUT_* to overrule WITH_*, the Makefile.inc1 = >usage >> would be greatly simplified. > >Maybe=85 the -DNO_* logic is a bit messy=85 NO_* always wins, it allows a makefile to say "I don't care what you want I cannot do that". 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= (i don't got no man page man) >Curious to see what you have in mind :).. Look at contrib/bmake/Makefile --sjg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140123221142.814FC5807E>