Re: Make options revisited

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please, noone commits this until the various issues are resolved.

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:13:03PM -0400, Carl A. Schmidt wrote:
> I could see that being a problem for people who are extremely used to
> that particular convention (NOMAN=noman).

NOMAN is used by external Makefiles.

> With regards to PPP:

I'm thinking about just having a single PPP_DISABLE_OPTION knob which
lists the suboption like
PPP_DISABLE_OPTION=	suid atm nat

> With regards to NO_INET6:

I think it should be scrapped.

> With regards to NO_HTML:

I have to check, but this can be scrapped too, I think.

> With regards to NO_INFOCOMPRESS:
>  o This is undocumented and I assume serves the same purpose as
>    NO_MANCOMPRESS.

Yes.

> With regards to NO_PAM:
>  o This pops up in ftpd, lukemftpd, login, and passwd.  Self-
>    explanitory.

IMO should be scrapped too.

> With regards to NO_PIC:
>  o Undocumented, probably better off that way as I doubt too many
>    people will ever tweak this knob one way or the other.

This should go away too. No all static configurations please, if someone
really wants to do that, she can cleanup afterwards.

> With regards to NO_FSCHG:
>  o Undocumented, possible feature.  I guess someone might find it
>    necessary to not install certain binaries without the flag fschg.

It is *very* useful. It allows you "make installworld" in a jail :-)

> The default make.conf file went under the axe the most I'd say because
> it is ridiculously behind the times, ports or no ports.  I removed all
> (I think) references to the FreeBSD ports system, as it has been
> stated that pkgsrc will be officially supported, the rules are a bit
> different I'd assume.

I haven't checked it yet, but that's OK with me.

> All instances of NOSHARED were changes to NO_SHARED, ditto for
> NOPROFILE.

No. Just like NOMAN, this knobs are used by external Makefiles.

> NOINSTALLLIB was changed to NO_INSTALLLIB (only shows up twice iirc).

This is fine with me.

> I understand that it will possibly be a source of contention, but with
> the NO_KERBEROS option, kerberos would be built by default.  I don't
> know how desireable that is, but then why bother having the code at
> all in the tree if it's not built by default?

(a) It is not active by default, because most people don't use Kerberos
for authentication.
(b) It is in the base system because it adds a lot of problems to add it
purely from pkgsrc/ports. Keep in mind that any Active Directory Windows
domain uses Kerberos.

I don't think the default should be changed.

Joerg