Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:12:43 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CTF patch for testing/review Message-ID: <20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20100322.203553.752311254955266835.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100322.130512.864843819464264610.imp@bsdimp.com> <201003221605.24538.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100322.203553.752311254955266835.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:35:53 -0600 (MDT)): > In message: <201003221605.24538.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes: > : On Monday 22 March 2010 3:05:12 pm M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> > : > M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > : > : 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. > : > > : > One last thing I should have said was that the patch that was posted > : > earlier in the thread looked ok, and likely couldn't be made > : > significantly better due to the bsd.own.mk issue. > : > : I think the patch is a good approach, I just think it needs to > default to not > : enabling CTF by default. Instead, various bsd.foo.mk should selectively > : enable it. > > I should have added that bit as well... And here it is: http://www.leidinger.net/test/ctf2.diff Please pay attention to one XXX comment. Both cases I describe look possible, but I would like to get some more eyes on this issues to not overlook something. I haven't renamed the NO_CTF part yet. Bikeshed: ENABLE_CTF / ADD_CTF / MK_CTF / MK_CTFINFO / MK_CTFINC / ...? Cast your vote please. Bye, Alexander. -- Zapp: There's only one surefire way back into a woman's heart and parts beyond. I speak, of course, of Karaoke. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc>