svn commit: r204591 - in head: sbin/ipfw sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet/ipfw sys/netinet/ipfw/test

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20100302192845.GD2489 at deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
            Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> writes:
: On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:51:30PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
: > ...
: > > > --- head/sbin/ipfw/Makefile	Tue Mar  2 17:34:11 2010	(r204590)
: > > > +++ head/sbin/ipfw/Makefile	Tue Mar  2 17:40:48 2010	(r204591)
: > > > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
: > > >  PROG=	ipfw
: > > >  SRCS=	ipfw2.c dummynet.c ipv6.c main.c nat.c altq.c
: > > >  WARNS?=	2
: > > > -DPADD=	${LIBUTIL}
: > > >  LDADD=	-lutil
: > > >  MAN=	ipfw.8
: > > Removal of DPADD is most likely regression ?
: > 
: > possibly.
: > i couldn't figure out why it was there in the
: > first place, can you clarify what it was for ?
: To depend on the libutil, so that ipfw is reloaded when libutil.a is
: changed.
: 
: The question I do not know answer for, is why do we need LDADD.

DPADD is used to add the static file (/usr/lib/libutil.a).  LDADD is
used to add the library to the command line (-lutil).  IIRC, it isn't
always possible to map one to the other, but I've never explored why...

Warner