svn commit: r215070 - head/tools/tools/nanobsd

[Warner Losh]

  On 11/09/2010 23:10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Warner Losh<imp at bsdimp.com>  wrote:
>>   On 11/09/2010 18:25, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Warner Losh<imp at freebsd.org>    wrote:
>>>> Author: imp
>>>> Date: Wed Nov 10 00:56:44 2010
>>>> New Revision: 215070
>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/215070
>>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>>   Build make.conf when the world is not selected to build, but the
>>>>   kernel is.
>>>>
>>>>   PR:           151696
>>>>   Submitted by: lev@
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>>   head/tools/tools/nanobsd/nanobsd.sh
>>>>
>>>> Modified: head/tools/tools/nanobsd/nanobsd.sh
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- head/tools/tools/nanobsd/nanobsd.sh Wed Nov 10 00:39:42 2010
>>>>   (r215069)
>>>> +++ head/tools/tools/nanobsd/nanobsd.sh Wed Nov 10 00:56:44 2010
>>>>   (r215070)
>>>> @@ -917,6 +917,9 @@ else
>>>>   fi
>>>>
>>>>   if $do_kernel ; then
>>>> +       if ! $do_world ; then
>>>> +               make_conf_build
>>>> +       fi
>>>>         build_kernel
>>>>   else
>>>>         pprint 2 "Skipping buildkernel (as instructed)"
>>>      Funny that it overwrites __MAKE_CONF, but not SRCCONF (seems like
>>> the latter would infect a system more than the former *shrugs*); I
>>> think I understand why it's not set in this script though, because
>>> IIRC src.conf predates nanobsd.
>>>      I set my core variables and features in src.conf so I think it'd
>>> probably be better to block that out too.
>>>      Should I provide a patch for this item?
>> __MAKE_CONF is the root of all evil.  SRCCONF shouldn't affect anything if
>> __MAKE_CONF is overriden.  If it does, then point me at the code in src that
>> pulls it in?
> $ cat test-srcconf.mk
> .include<bsd.own.mk>
> $ tail -n 1 /etc/src.conf
> .error "Hallo old chap!"
> $ make __MAKE_CONF=/dev/null -f test-srcconf.mk
> "/etc/src.conf", line 64: "Hallo old chap!"
>
>      They're completely different methods of supplying different bits of info :).

At least the patch looks trivial..

Warner
> Thanks!
> -Garrett
>
>
>