On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good
> enough, especially if it's on by default.
>
> Even if it is magic, is that really the kind of magic we want
On Oct 22, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Warner Losh writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
>>> I would prefer calling this MK_ATF than MK_TESTS_SUPPORT, though.
>>> The test framework is probably useful on its own.
>> That would be a nicer name, but then we’d lose the automat
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 11:00 -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> wrote:
> >
> > > Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good
> > > enough, especially if it's on by
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 11:00 -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>
> > Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good
> > enough, especially if it's on by default.
>
>
> Even if it is magic, is that really the kind of
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good
> enough, especially if it's on by default.
Even if it is magic, is that really the kind of magic we want to be keeping
around?
-Ben
_
Warner Losh writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > I would prefer calling this MK_ATF than MK_TESTS_SUPPORT, though.
> > The test framework is probably useful on its own.
> That would be a nicer name, but then we’d lose the automatic setting
> when MK_TESTS is enabled (unless we add another sp
On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Warner Losh writes:
>> I’ll fix this. I think we need to have a MK_TESTS_SUPPORT that builds
>> the libatf stuff when yes, and omits it when no, since we don’t want
>> the tests building when we’re building the 4.3 stage.
>
> I agree, b
Warner Losh writes:
> I’ll fix this. I think we need to have a MK_TESTS_SUPPORT that builds
> the libatf stuff when yes, and omits it when no, since we don’t want
> the tests building when we’re building the 4.3 stage.
I agree, bundling everything under MK_TESTS does not make much sense.
Automake
On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Warner Losh writes:
>> Author: imp
>> Date: Tue Oct 21 20:29:42 2014
>> New Revision: 273417
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/273417
>>
>> Log:
>> You aren't allowed to test WITH_xxx or WITHOUT_xxx here, so remove it.
Warner Losh writes:
> Author: imp
> Date: Tue Oct 21 20:29:42 2014
> New Revision: 273417
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/273417
>
> Log:
> You aren't allowed to test WITH_xxx or WITHOUT_xxx here, so remove it.
> Even if you were allowed to test for it, the test makes no sense
Author: imp
Date: Tue Oct 21 20:29:42 2014
New Revision: 273417
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/273417
Log:
You aren't allowed to test WITH_xxx or WITHOUT_xxx here, so remove it.
Even if you were allowed to test for it, the test makes no sense as it
always results in adding -D
11 matches
Mail list logo