Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:39:54 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Julio Merino <julio@meroh.net> Cc: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Confusion over BSD.tests.dist Message-ID: <500AA3D4-6910-406A-A093-1B925DF0612D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADyfeQVq2gr9aGu=Zi4rpKM9FfP24c-CZ2SRjkCfQ4aBL=2-ww@mail.gmail.com> References: <83E6FED5-2E76-4E43-9547-C0DC1C90DBBD@gmail.com> <AD5A2A2F-DC12-4DBC-8E63-9EC7A872B7B7@gmail.com> <CADyfeQVxJbX7uRWtOhCsBNQdZ7=qnwH=s7QCYWQbq%2BLO4E%2BESg@mail.gmail.com> <E9B8E13C-1679-4507-8949-BF8F48102E53@gmail.com> <CADyfeQVq2gr9aGu=Zi4rpKM9FfP24c-CZ2SRjkCfQ4aBL=2-ww@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 24, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Julio Merino <julio@meroh.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Garrett Cooper =
<yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Julio Merino <julio@meroh.net> wrote:
>>> Is TESTSBASE supposed to be customizable? (And before answering =
that:
>>=20
>> It can be:
>>=20
>> # grep -r TESTSBASE share/mk
>> share/mk/bsd.README:TESTSDIR Target directory relative to =
${TESTSBASE} for tests and
>> share/mk/bsd.own.mk:TESTSBASE?=3D /usr/tests
>=20
> I know it _can_ be, but the question is: do we want to support that as
> a use case? I'm not sure why anybody would want to move /usr/tests
> anywhere else. If there is no real reason other than "just because",
> I don't think the build system should make any accommodations to make
> it trivial. (Because if it's trivial, people _will_ move it and when
> things break, it's one more thing to support in bug reports.)
Fair enough. The problem is that there are some organizations (like the =
one I just left =97 EMC) that use other paths for testing (i.e. not =
/usr/tests) because adjusting existing infrastructure to match new stuff =
is difficult, introduces unnecessary risk, and could break generic =
tools.
>>> are things like LIBDIR or INCLUDEDIR user-tunabale?)
>>=20
>> Those are user tunable too, but generally not tweaked, except when =
dealing with packages that use bsd.*.mk (e.g. ports):
>>=20
>> # egrep --include \*.mk -r '^INCLUDEDIR|^LIBDIR' share/mk
>> share/mk/bsd.own.mk:LIBDIR?=3D /usr/lib
>> share/mk/bsd.own.mk:INCLUDEDIR?=3D /usr/include
>=20
> Right, so they are tunable when bsd.*.mk are abused to build things
> from ports (and in that case mtree doesn't apply). But I believe they
> are not tunable to tell the base system where the libraries or headers
> should be; if they were, I'm pretty sure things would break in obscure
> ways and it'd be a "support" headache.
It=92s not really abuse; there are also some packagers/third party =
groups that implement bsd.*.mk properly with the intent to integrate =
better into *BSD (by and large the Makefile snippets are consistent =
between the BSDs in many cases, so there=92s some degree of =
portability), in part because the original upstream source may have done =
such a shoddy job writing configure scripts or were so Linux centric =
that it=92s better to write something simple from scratch for an initial =
port.
Cheers!
-Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?500AA3D4-6910-406A-A093-1B925DF0612D>