Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com 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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Warner Losh
On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote: Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com 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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no 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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Ian Lepore
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 11:00 -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no 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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org 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 d...@des.no wrote: Is _SUPPORT magic? I didn't know. I guess MK_TESTS_SUPPORT is good enough,

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Warner Losh
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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-22 Thread Warner Losh
On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Benjamin Kaduk bjkf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no 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

svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-21 Thread Warner Losh
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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-21 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Warner Losh i...@freebsd.org 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

Re: svn commit: r273417 - head

2014-10-21 Thread Warner Losh
On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote: Warner Losh i...@freebsd.org 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,