> -------- > In message <9f03fb79-a0ad-3c11-9a50-bc7731882da9_at_fastmail.com>, Yuri Pankov writes: > >Trond Endrest?l wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:56+0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > >> > >>> OK, I figured it out. > >>> > >>> I used to have MK_CTF=no in src.conf, but I recently changed it to > >>> WITH_CTF=no. > >> > >> It's either WITH_xxx=yes or WITHOUT_xxx=yes. > > > >Or even WITH_xxx= or WITHOUT_xxx=, src.conf(5) explicitly states that > >value is NOT checked: > > > >The values of variables are ignored regardless of their setting; even if > > they would be set to "FALSE" or "NO". The presence of an option > >causes it to be honored by make(1). > > That is not even close to POLA-compliance... I am not a fan of it either, not sure when this idea came about of doing WITH_ and WITHOUT and ignoring the set value, but it is very non POLA given how many variables we do have with set values. > > Obviously negative values ("false", "no") should either be reported as > errors or preferably be respected. > > PS: [This is not the bikeshed you are looking for] BLUE! > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 -- Rod Grimes rgrimes_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Fri Apr 10 2020 - 14:45:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:23 UTC