On 9/22/2015 11:25 PM, Baptiste Daroussin 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 >
I have fixed this actually. I am committing today. > 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. > > Best regards, > Bapt > -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature