From nobody Fri Feb 23 19:45:38 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ThL8n0VNqz5BPG0 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (spindle.one-eyed-alien.net [199.48.129.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ThL8m5rybz568R for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:45:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (Postfix, from userid 3001) id 19EC83C019A; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:45:38 +0000 From: Brooks Davis To: Michael Dexter Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WITHOUT_CASPER ghost? Message-ID: References: <8f2d4d8c-9c93-42be-b67b-2495cb027c8f@callfortesting.org> List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:199.48.128.0/22, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4ThL8m5rybz568R 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