On Oct 22, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> wrote:
> Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> writes: >> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> 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 special case, which is >> the opposite direction that I want to go in). How strongly do you feel >> that’s a better name? > > Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good > enough, especially if it's on by default. It is magic. Though one can replicate similar magic with MK_TESTS and MK_ATF if one wanted to do so (there’s a second list of defaults based on settings that have unrelated names), though that list is much smaller and used in much more obscure areas of the system. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
