tech-toolchain archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Sets, subsets, syspkgs, and MK*

> Sort of....  "NETBSD_CONFIG_HAVE_*" is sort of like "USE_*" and
> "NETBSD_CONFIG_USE_*" is sort of like "MK*".
> It might be a useful renaming though -- just from a name-space
> clarification point of view.  And I would stick pretty much with the
> current meanings and prefixes:
>       NETBSD_CONFIG_MK_*      - _build_ (and install) a subset
>                                 (implying to change "contents")
>       NETBSD_CONFIG_USE_*     - enable a feature in a program
>                                 (implying NO change to "contents")

My point is to realize that most USE_* variables change signature globally.
USE_YP even changes libc signature.

> Again, share/mk/bsd.README documents most of this _quite_ clearly, not
> as a summary per se, but definitely in whole based on the descriptions
> of all the MK* and USE_* variables taken together.
> It's also further clarified in how things work in distrib/sets.

Clarified, maybe yes.  But very incomplete.

> There are of course exceptions to every rule, though I think most or all
> of these are simply mistakes, i.e. mis-uses of USE_* vs. MK* and I'm
> surprised that they still exist and have not yet been fixed.

Me too.

> Namely USE_INET6, USE_KERBEROS, and USE_YP _also_ currently imply
> changes to the contents of a distribution.  Everything else in
> distrib/sets is controlled only by MK* variables.
> For example in every case where USE_INET6 currently affects the contents
> of a distribution, this affect could and should be achieved with MKINET6
> instead.  The same goes for USE_YP vs. MKYP and USE_KERBEROS
> vs. MKKERBEROS (which is really only yppasswd and kpasswd, and their
> documentation, respectively).

We should audit all those use and make them modular == no signature change
but be "subsets".

> So, perhaps what's confused you are just these simple bugs where USE_*
> has been misused?

I was confused because those are "almost done", but not finished.  Most
opinions I've got from people is "why do you do that"?  No one has answered
my question - why don't we distribute binary patches?


Masao Uebayashi / Tombi Inc. / Tel: +81-90-9141-4635

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index