> --------
> In message <9f03fb79-a0ad-3c11-9a50-bc7731882...@fastmail.com>, Yuri Pankov
> writes:
> >Trond Endrest?l wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:56+0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, I figured it out.
> >>>
> >>> I used to have MK_CTF=no in src.conf, but I recently changed it to
> >>> WITH_CTF=no.
> >>
> >> It's either WITH_xxx=yes or WITHOUT_xxx=yes.
> >
> >Or even WITH_xxx= or WITHOUT_xxx=, src.conf(5) explicitly states that
> >value is NOT checked:
> >
> >The values of variables are ignored regardless of their setting; even if
> > they would be set to "FALSE" or "NO". The presence of an option
> >causes it to be honored by make(1).
>
> That is not even close to POLA-compliance...
I am not a fan of it either, not sure when this idea came about
of doing WITH_ and WITHOUT and ignoring the set value, but it
is very non POLA given how many variables we do have with set values.
>
> Obviously negative values ("false", "no") should either be reported as
> errors or preferably be respected.
>
> PS: [This is not the bikeshed you are looking for]
BLUE!
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
--
Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
