Makefile.inc1.patch

[Garrett Cooper]

On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg at juniper.net> wrote:

>>> For options.mk I allow MK_* to already be set and WITHOUT_* to take
>>> precedence over WITH_*.  I also allow makefiles to have their own =
>> lists
>>> of options - separate the policy from the mechanism.
>> 
>> Would that fix this case though?
> 
> I imagine it would make fixing it easier.
> 
>>> I guess you could even allow a per-knob setting as to which takes
>>> precedence.=20
>> 
>> You mean override the default so WITH_* overrides WITHOUT_*?
> 
> Yes - I expect that would be rare, but worth it for completness.
> The important thing is a simple precidence rule.
> 
>>> By simply allowing WITHOUT_* to overrule WITH_*, the Makefile.inc1 =
>> usage
>>> would be greatly simplified.
>> 
>> Maybe=85 the -DNO_* logic is a bit messy=85
> 
> NO_* always wins, it allows a makefile to say "I don't care what you
> want I cannot do that".
> 
> Most places you see -DNO_* used could be -DWITHOUT_* if the semantics
> were not broken as previously described.
> NO_* should be mainly for makefiles to set - like NO_MAN= (i don't got
> no man page man)
> 
>> Curious to see what you have in mind :)..
> 
> Look at contrib/bmake/Makefile

Ok, I’ll definitely look at that.

Alan,

As far as fixing your issue is concerned though, has a fix already been committed or does one still need to be committed? If the latter, does this suffice for today — with the intent that it will get ripped out in favor of something cleaner in the [near] future?

Thanks!
-Garrett