svn commit: r212558 - head/usr.bin

[Doug Barton]

On 9/14/2010 7:29 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message:<4C9020C5.90108 at FreeBSD.org>
>              Doug Barton<dougb at FreeBSD.org>  writes:
> : On 9/13/2010 8:30 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> :>  Author: imp
> :>  Date: Mon Sep 13 15:30:09 2010
> :>  New Revision: 212558
> :>  URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/212558
> :>
> :>  Log:
> :>     Move to using Makefile.arch to include the proper target-specific
> :>     programs.
> :>
> :>  Modified:
> :>     head/usr.bin/Makefile
> :>
> :>  Modified: head/usr.bin/Makefile
> :>  ==============================================================================
> :>  --- head/usr.bin/Makefile	Mon Sep 13 15:19:49 2010	(r212557)
> :>  +++ head/usr.bin/Makefile Mon Sep 13 15:30:09 2010 (r212558)
> :>  @@ -11,48 +11,29 @@
> :>
> :>    SUBDIR=	alias \
> :>    	apply \
> :>  -	${_ar} \
> :
> :>    .if ${MK_TOOLCHAIN} != "no"
> :>  -_ar=		ar
> :
> :>  +SUBDIR+=	ar
> :
> :
> : I'm curious about why you're changing the method we use to switch
> : optional elements. The change seems gratuitous to me, but I'm willing
> : to be persuaded.
>
> I posted these exact patches many times to arch@ and while people
> commented on other aspects of the change, no body ever commented on
> this aspect of the change (apart from comments about how to do it
> better).  That's why I specifically said that there was no objection
> from arch@ for these changes.

I'm not disputing that. Like many other people my time for FreeBSD is 
limited, much more so lately, and I was not able to review your patches 
in depth at the time you posted them. My apologies for the late questions.

> Doing things this way makes it easier for different architectures to
> subset or augment the directories to build (and it makes it a lot
> easier to know what's built on a given architecture).  They can be
> concentrated into individual Makefiles that are easier to select on.
> MIPS and ARM are both moving to having multiple names (powerpc moved a
> couple of months ago) and the current arrangement doesn't scale well
> in the face of these changes.  It is far from gratuitous.

I understand that what you've written above was your intent in making 
the change, what I don't clearly understand is why it's better. But you 
seem to, and AFAICT the change isn't harmful, so I'll take your word for 
it.

FYI, the reason I asked is that there were already a non-trivial number 
of small differences in the we handle build options in the various 
release branches, which makes handling support for things like BIND 
(which has a lot of knobs) "interesting." However it seems like your new 
build system is going to add a lot of other differences to what will 
become 9-release anyway, so I suppose once again I'll just struggle 
along with it. :)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your changes in more depth.


Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/