Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:03:17 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.README Message-ID: <p0623092ac0363891c64c@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua> References: <200603090133.k291XcfB005631@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:03 AM +0200 3/9/06, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
>I can only suggest to make it spell "NO_MAN=", i.e.,
>without any value.
>
>Was there some discussion that I've missed?
In the thread on:
cvs commit: src/tools/regression/lib/libc/resolv Makefile
des made the comment:
"> > > No, the correct spelling is
> > > MAN=
> Since when? ...
Since we abandoned MAN[1-9]. The fact that many old Makefiles
still use NO_MAN doesn't make it right; NO_MAN is a user knob,
not a Makefile knob (same distinction as between WITH_FOO and
USE_FOO in the ports tree)
"
This is one of those issues that I have no personal opinion on,
other than I wanted lpr's makefiles to be "correct", for whatever
the consensus is for what "correct" means. I probably should
have waited for more discussion in that thread before making this
change, but I just happened to be looking over some code in 'lpr'
when I read the above comment, so I thought "I might as well fix
this as long as I'm right here...".
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0623092ac0363891c64c>