Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:11:16 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: current@FreeBSD.org, "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> Cc: ru@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: recent bsd.lib.mk changes Message-ID: <200206211911.16083.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020621150241.A34548@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200206211429.33406.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <200206211746.17877.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20020621150241.A34548@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 21 June 2002 06:02 pm, David O'Brien wrote: = On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > Why can't we have some way to explicitly list what is and what is not = > needed? = = Feel free to send a patch adding "ONLYSHAREDLIBS". "INTERNALLIB" in no = logical way I can think of would lead someone to think that only shared = libs should be built and they should be installed. Here I agree completely. I have always been puzzled by the naming of this knob. But it was the only way to achieve the goal. It is now a different knob entirely -- but under the same name, which is quite confusing. I am thinking, however, of something explicit like: WANT_SHARED_LIB ?= yes WANT_STATIC_LIB ?= yes WANT_PIC_LIB ?= yes with the existing NOPROFILE and others to remain as "compatibility" interfaces for a while, for example: .ifndef WANT_PIC_LIB .ifndef NOPROFILE WANT_PIC_LIB = yes .else WANT_PIC_LIB = no .endif .endif The last change broke not only some ports, but who knows how many personal projects, which where doing the Right Thing (IMO) and used the bsd.*.mk I will not have time to make a patch in a while :-\, however... Any way to determine quickly from inside the Makefile, which version of the bsd.lib.mk is installed? -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206211911.16083.mi%2Bmx>