svn commit: r286995 - head/share/mk

[Garrett Cooper]

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 23:25, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:07:33PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 8/21/15 8:15 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> Author: imp
>>> Date: Fri Aug 21 15:15:22 2015
>>> New Revision: 286995
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286995
>>> 
>>> Log:
>>>  Document bsd.progs.mk, including its status as being strongly
>>>  discouraged and that it will be going away as soon as is practicable.
>>> 
>>> Modified:
>>>  head/share/mk/bsd.README
>> 
>> I find this functionality irreplaceable for simplicity. The alternative
>> is more Makefiles for simple extra progs. Granted it has meta mode
>> dirdeps issues but I think that is acceptable as there are other ways to
>> address that.
>> 
>> Where is this deprecation coming from? Is it just due to bapt's
>> in-progress (but not working) patch at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3444
>> to remove bsd.progs.mk in place of PROGS in bsd.prog.mk?
>> 
>> I would like to document PROGS properly. I had no idea how it worked
>> until reading over it tonight. If the plan wasn't to remove PROGS itself
>> I will do so.
> This is the exact opposite.
> 
> the review comes from the fact that bsd.progs.mk is broken.and has not be fixed
> for a while. The brokenness comes from the fact it is including magically
> bsd.prog.mk multiple times, the easiy to see brokenness is the fact that
> everything defining FILES/SCRIPTS and other magic macros that bsd.prog.mk accept
> via it multiple inputs will be reinstalled multiple times, one can fix those by
> exhaustively adding overwrites of every single macros, but hat would be really
> tedious each time one of the thing included in bsd.prog.mk get modified or added
> 
> You can easily see that for all the bsd.tests.mk.
> 
> While I do really like the fonctionnality it is very complicticated to get it
> working.
> 
> My work in progress version is eaily fixable by adding:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2003-June/000906.html
> 
> And extending the above for LDFLAGS and CXXFLAGS.
> 
> Which had been rejected in the past multiple times :(
> 
> The subject came back again
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2010-September/010613.html
> 
> I think D3444 would be a good excuse to bring back the idea of perfiles specific
> FLAGS. But I didn't want to wake up dead subject noone agreed on.

I have some work in perforce that was largely tested, but the impact was "high" and bsd.progs.mk filled the gap, but it has a lot of gaps with bsd.prog.mk (it's bsd.prog.mk with some assembly required type issues and the way bsd.test.mk uses it is like putting a square peg in a round hole). I have other work in svn I've been doing to fix it, but with work/life the way it is, I have not incredibly motivated to follow through with it.

Whatever's done though should probably leverage the tests I wrote up in perforce. There were a bunch of them that are worth capturing and using as "requirements" for PROGS in bsd.progs.mk.