Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:12:27 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, kris@obsecurity.org (Kris Kennaway) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Breaking up make.conf Message-ID: <p05010404b6cdd7750b19@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <200103081932.LAA26410@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <200103081932.LAA26410@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:32 AM -0800 3/8/01, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > I've been thinking a bit about how to break up the monolithic > > make.conf, which is starting to grow a bit unwieldy of late. > > > > Moving world config options to a world.conf is a bit more > > tricky [...]. The only way I can think to do this is to > > have everything include ../Makefile.inc back up to the > > root of the tree, which sets a BUILDING_WORLD variable that > > is used to control the inclusion of /etc/world.conf and > > /etc/defaults/world.conf. It's a bit messy, but I can't > > seem to see any better way. > >I've though about this on and off over the years, and would actually >like to see src/make.conf or src/world.conf and remove the /etc >dependecy. The major reason is that I often have more than one >src tree on a build system and I have to screw around with >/etc/make.conf if build environments are different. I like the idea of breaking out the make-options which are specific to /usr/src to their own file. I do think it is worthwhile to keep the check for /etc/make.conf, so the user can set options which really do apply to any 'make' (such as 'CFLAGS= -pipe', which is appropriate for anything compiled on my machine...). How about having the final /usr/src/Makefile.inc define the actual files which should be included by bsd.obj.mk or other makefiles? The standard version would define /etc/world.conf and /etc/defaults/world.conf, because I think do it's best that all these make-options are specified in /etc (by default), just as they currently are. But if that Makefile.inc defines the specific filenames, we would also have the ability to easily handle situations such as Rodney described. In a later message, Rodney also mentioned: >Pretty much. I think you can elimiate the need for the >additional ../Makefile.inc using a .for loop just hunting >for the make.conf, it just seems silly to me to need to add >91 one line Makefile.inc's to get this to work. I would rather this be done by explicit includes, instead of a magic search down the current path trying to find a magically-named file. If I duplicate some branch of /usr/src into my own home directory, then I want an explicit error if it isn't going to pick up some file that it would have picked up if compiled in /usr/src. I suspect we can afford the 91 extra files... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05010404b6cdd7750b19>