Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:39:25 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.README Message-ID: <864q262zci.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua> (Ruslan Ermilov's message of "Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:03:07 %2B0200") References: <200603090133.k291XcfB005631@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:33:38AM +0000, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Log:
> > Now that we now spell NO_MAN=xxx MAN=, update the docs.
> I object.
>
> 1) This is not common:
>
> grep '^NO_MAN=' {bin,usr.bin,sbin,usr.sbin}/*/Makefile |wc -l
> 10
> grep '^MAN=[[:space:]]*(#.*)?$' {bin,usr.bin,sbin,usr.sbin}/*/Makefile |wc -l
> 0
>
> 2) MAN= is worse for performance (with NO_MAN, bsd.man.mk is not
> processes at all which is faster).
>
> 3) This is in contrast with NO_OBJ and similar knobs.
>
> I can only suggest to make it spell "NO_MAN=", i.e., without any value.
>
> Was there some discussion that I've missed?
I was told long ago (shortly after we switched from MAN[1-9] to just
MAN, I believe) that NO_MAN was wrong, and the correct way was to
define MAN to an empty value.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?864q262zci.fsf>