Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 08:43:16 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Simon Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make WITH[OUT]_* more useful? Message-ID: <20140401064316.GQ99393@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20140401051327.F20F958097@chaos.jnpr.net> References: <20140401051327.F20F958097@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9+VnUxDxRuy97YQ+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:13:27PM -0700, Simon Gerraty wrote: > I really like the idea of WITH[OUT]_* knobs translating to MK_* knobs, > but I find the current implementation much less useful than I think it > could be. Not the least of its problems is being implemented in > bsd.own.mk which ties policy and mechanism together. >=20 > It is not always (rarely) safe to include the in-tree bsd.own.mk which > means that in many cases you cannot rely on MK_* at all, but have to > re-implement the WITH_* vs WITHOUT_* logic repeatedly. >=20 > It is also generally bad to include bsd.own.mk from sys.mk, which means > any knobs you need early must re-implement the WITH_* vs WITHOUT_* logic > repeatedly. >=20 > contrib/bmake/mk/options.mk is an example of a more generic > implementation with (I think) some advantages. >=20 > The key semantic changes are (DOMINANT_* is from a newer version > than in contrib): >=20 > # NO_* takes precedence > # If both WITH_* and WITHOUT_* are defined, WITHOUT_ wins unless > # DOMINANT_* is set to "yes" > # Otherwise WITH_* and WITHOUT_* override the default. > and > MK_* can be pre-set without causing an error. >=20 > The key advantage is that the mechanism is separate from the policy. > You can thus have knobs that get set much earlier (eg during sys.mk) > and other knobs that get set later. Ie. both sys.mk and bsd.own.mk can > include options.mk to process options that they care about, allowing > MK_* to be used more consistently - you could use different prefix to > avoid overlap, but that's probably not necessary. >=20 > You can in fact have per-makefile option lists if you want (see > contrib/bmake/Makefile)=20 >=20 > Thoughts? I would be interested in having your opinion on what we did for ports. Basically we have in the end a variable: PORT_OPTIONS that contains the the options that are considered like "MK_*" =3D yes and all the one considerer = as are not it. one can activate variables via make.conf: OPTIONS_SET=3D OPT1 OPT2 OPTIONS_UNSET=3D OPT3 We added a couple of sugar so that options are not on yes/no but can be a selection in a list etc. Can be looked at here: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.options.= mk Having it creating in the end the MK_* variables would be really realy easy. regards, Bapt --9+VnUxDxRuy97YQ+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlM6YAQACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwqCwCcC19iLPOR3T7h+CxzzimZZ179 FDEAn3LXCkxynr91lPnVyRGhS9qtWIc3 =YKB2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9+VnUxDxRuy97YQ+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140401064316.GQ99393>