CTF patch for testing/review

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010  
12:59:37 -0600 (MDT)):

> In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8 at webmail.leidinger.net>
>             Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> writes:
> : Normally we use MK_xxx for things which are opt-in/opt-out. What about
> : using MK_xxx instead of ENABLE_CTF? If people are in favour of MK_xxx,
> : what should the xxx part look like?
>
> Normally we *TEST* MK_XXX for things which are opt-in/opt-out and
> require the user to say WITH_XXX or WITHOUT_XXX if they don't like the
> default (or want to ensure they get option XXX, even if we turn it off
> by default in the future).  The default then gets encoded in
> bsd.own.mk, and permeates the FreeBSD build system since we include
> that everywhere, directly or indirectly.

As I was understanding jhb, he proposed to use ENABLE_CTF in a way  
like we use the MK_XXX, and my question was targetted in this  
direction. The implementation (location/code) probably needs to be  
different from how we do it normally, but IMO at least the naming  
convention (MK_XXX and WITH_CTF/WITHOUT_CTF) can stay... except  
someone provides a good reason not to use MK_XXX, off course.

I asked what name the XXX part should have because in case we want to  
handle the CTF stuff similar to WITHOUT_SENDMAIL, we need to be able  
to distinguish the build of e.g. libctf/ctfconvert/ctfmerge and the  
use of those programs to build binaries with CTF info included.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
In God we trust; all else we walk through.

http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137