On 9/14/2010 7:29 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message:<4c9020c5.90...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton<do...@freebsd.org> writes:
: On 9/13/2010 8:30 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
:> Author: imp
:> Date: Mon Sep 13 15:30:09 2010
:> New Revision: 212558
:> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/212558
:>
:> Log:
:> Move to using Makefile.arch to include the proper target-specific
:> programs.
:>
:> Modified:
:> head/usr.bin/Makefile
:>
:> Modified: head/usr.bin/Makefile
:>
==============================================================================
:> --- head/usr.bin/Makefile Mon Sep 13 15:19:49 2010 (r212557)
:> +++ head/usr.bin/Makefile Mon Sep 13 15:30:09 2010 (r212558)
:> @@ -11,48 +11,29 @@
:>
:> SUBDIR= alias \
:> apply \
:> - ${_ar} \
:
:> .if ${MK_TOOLCHAIN} != "no"
:> -_ar= ar
:
:> +SUBDIR+= ar
:
:
: I'm curious about why you're changing the method we use to switch
: optional elements. The change seems gratuitous to me, but I'm willing
: to be persuaded.
I posted these exact patches many times to arch@ and while people
commented on other aspects of the change, no body ever commented on
this aspect of the change (apart from comments about how to do it
better). That's why I specifically said that there was no objection
from arch@ for these changes.
I'm not disputing that. Like many other people my time for FreeBSD is
limited, much more so lately, and I was not able to review your patches
in depth at the time you posted them. My apologies for the late questions.
Doing things this way makes it easier for different architectures to
subset or augment the directories to build (and it makes it a lot
easier to know what's built on a given architecture). They can be
concentrated into individual Makefiles that are easier to select on.
MIPS and ARM are both moving to having multiple names (powerpc moved a
couple of months ago) and the current arrangement doesn't scale well
in the face of these changes. It is far from gratuitous.
I understand that what you've written above was your intent in making
the change, what I don't clearly understand is why it's better. But you
seem to, and AFAICT the change isn't harmful, so I'll take your word for
it.
FYI, the reason I asked is that there were already a non-trivial number
of small differences in the we handle build options in the various
release branches, which makes handling support for things like BIND
(which has a lot of knobs) "interesting." However it seems like your new
build system is going to add a lot of other differences to what will
become 9-release anyway, so I suppose once again I'll just struggle
along with it. :)
Thanks for taking the time to explain your changes in more depth.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
