Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:59:37 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTF patch for testing/review Message-ID: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100322123408.16671ijbvmcyux80@webmail.leidinger.net> <201003220941.10525.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net>
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes:
: Normally we use MK_xxx for things which are opt-in/opt-out. What about
: using MK_xxx instead of ENABLE_CTF? If people are in favour of MK_xxx,
: what should the xxx part look like?
Normally we *TEST* MK_XXX for things which are opt-in/opt-out and
require the user to say WITH_XXX or WITHOUT_XXX if they don't like the
default (or want to ensure they get option XXX, even if we turn it off
by default in the future). The default then gets encoded in
bsd.own.mk, and permeates the FreeBSD build system since we include
that everywhere, directly or indirectly.
The problem is that bsd.own.mk is not included in sys.mk, nor should
it be. That's why we have the hacky combination of WITH_CTF and
NO_CTF that's there today.
: Is bsd.kern.mk included in module builds too?
Yes.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp>