Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:47:43 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: marcel@xcllnt.net Subject: Re: Standardized make options (or no doesn't always mean no) Message-ID: <20020614.004743.27325725.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <20020609101333.A26546@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <3D02E881.2F3F57CB@mindspring.com> <20020609072725.GA47864@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20020609101333.A26546@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20020609101333.A26546@dragon.nuxi.com>
"David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
: [please take care to NOT CC me, I do read arch@]
:
: On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 12:27:25AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
: > Also, I believe in earlier discussions NO_BLA was in favor by most of
: > the people involved, but I can be wrong here (too).
:
: You are correct. I estimate this discussion was 2 years ago now.
: Everyone except BDE (and maybe a few others) wanted NOFOO, all the rest
: wanted NO_FOO. In June 2000, Kris Kennaway made a set of patches to
: change most everything to NO_.
I think you ment that everybody wanted NO_FOO, except bde and a couple
others. They wanted to retain the traditional NOFOO.
NO_FOO is the new standard. We didn't do the cutover in 2000 because
it was deemed too disruptive for folks that have 4.x and current
builds on the same box. With the ability to set make.conf on a
per-build basis now, that's a moot point. I can see no real reason
for not completing the cutover, except manpower.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020614.004743.27325725.imp>