> On Sep 22, 2015, at 23:25, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> 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 > > 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.
I have some work in perforce that was largely tested, but the impact was "high" and bsd.progs.mk filled the gap, but it has a lot of gaps with bsd.prog.mk (it's bsd.prog.mk with some assembly required type issues and the way bsd.test.mk uses it is like putting a square peg in a round hole). I have other work in svn I've been doing to fix it, but with work/life the way it is, I have not incredibly motivated to follow through with it. Whatever's done though should probably leverage the tests I wrote up in perforce. There were a bunch of them that are worth capturing and using as "requirements" for PROGS in bsd.progs.mk. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
