Re: WITHOUT_CASPER ghost?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:21:12AM -0800, Michael Dexter wrote:
> On 2/23/24 9:13 AM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Things are in a somewhat messy state.  CASPER and CAPSICUM were moved to
> > a new __REQUIRED_OPTIONS list, but the various bits still exist and
> > there's even one use of MK_CASPER=no in Makefile.inc1.  The commit
> > message (c24c117b9644) suggests that the intent was to finish removal
> > after 14 branched and it just hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> > I do wonder if the tool would also benefit from learning about
> > __REQUIRED_OPTIONS.
> 
> By required do you mean WITHOUT_AUTO_OBJ, WITHOUT_UNIFIED_OBJDIR,
> WITHOUT_INSTALLLIB which I manually skip/mask my build option testing?

From bsd.mkopt.mk:

# For each option FOO in __REQUIRED_OPTIONS, MK_FOO is set to "yes".

If you set MK_FOO=no in a way that make can't override them (e.g., on
the make command line) then the functionality is still there during the
transition.  It's probably a bug that we don't whine about this case
like we do with WITHOUT_FOO.

> If so, what syntax would use __REQUIRED_OPTIONS and what branches support it?

__REQUIRED_OPTIONS isn't really a user accessible bit of machinery, but
the survey should probably be aware of it.  It looks like
__REQUIRED_OPTIONS is in 14, but not 13.

-- Brooks