Integrated DEBUG related macros to WITH_DEBUG/WITHOUT_DEBUG
stijn at win.tue.nl
Sun Nov 13 02:03:37 PST 2005
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:07:29AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Sunday, 13. November 2005 09:16, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:00:21AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > I don't think it's a good idea at all to unify all debug knobs
> > > into one universal WITH/WITHOUT_DEBUG - it requires the user to use a
> > > third party portmanager utilitiy or fiddling with conditionals in
> > > make.conf if he wants debug symbols on specific ports only.
> > Well that goes for the other knobs as well of course -- WITH_PERL,
> > WITH_PYTHON and other programming extension languages come to mind, as
> > do NOPORTDOCS and WITHOUT_GUI (there are some things that I don't need
> > a GUI for on my desktop).
> And people have expressed their unhappiness with that status quo repeatedly,
> especially in the context of OPTIONS.
> One very promising proposed solution was to extend the OPTIONS framework to
> support NO_OPTIONS_<portname> and WITH|WITHOUT_<option_choice>_<portname>.
> I agree that this is the way to go - making the currently available switches
> even more ambiguous just in order to get more content into KNOBS is
I totally agree that such an implementation combines the best of both
worlds. I disagree with waiting to disambiguate options until it is
available, but this is just my opinion (looking through either 'make
config-recursive' or ports Makefiles isn't my idea of fun as I'm sure
it isn't yours).
"What kind of a two-bit operation are they running out of this treehouse,
Cooper? I have seen some slipshod backwater burgs, but this place takes the
-- Special Agent Albert Rosenfield, "Twin Peaks"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20051113/5332e774/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports