Makefile.inc1.patch

[Garrett Cooper]

Ugh. Backwards logic (sorry)...

On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Alan Somers <asomers at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Alan Somers <asomers at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In that case, I'm missing something.  I can't find any makefiles that
>>>> reference MK_ATF or a related variable.  What is the effect of setting
>>>> WITH_ATF ?
>>>> 
>>>> -Alan
>>> 
>>>       NO_TESTS forces WITHOUT_TESTS to be set. So, if I set NO_TESTS in the various build steps it will force ATF to not be built. For that reason (and that reason alone) I reintroduced WITH_ATF just for Makefile.inc1 (but you could replace it with something else like WITH_ATF_LIBS, etc, if the naming is too confusing).
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Garrett
>> 
>> I get that much, but what I don't understand is what direct affect
>> WITH_ATF has.  Did you forget to reintroduce a ".if defined(MK_ATF)"
>> in some other file?
> 
> No, the purpose of WITH_ATF is to override NO_TESTS, so building the ATF libs now has two conditions:
> 
> build_atf_libs = (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?)

build_atf_libs = (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITH_TESTS defined?)

> versus one:
> 
> build_atf_libs = (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?)

build_atf_libs = (is WITH_TESTS defined?)

> This allows us pepper NO_TESTS around and thus not build tests in the build process unless they’re _really_ needed (e.g. in make everything).