From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan  8 10:04:15 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 864F716A4D0; Thu,  8 Jan 2004 10:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from green.bikeshed.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by green.bikeshed.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i08I4EnU012059;
	Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:04:14 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost)i08I4EPB012056;
	Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:04:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200401081804.i08I4EPB012056@green.bikeshed.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: Message from Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> 
	<20040108175746.GB33759@FreeBSD.org.ua> 
From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:04:14 -0500
Sender: green@green.bikeshed.org
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.obj.mk 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:04:16 -0000

Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:07:32PM -0500, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > I don't see the bsd.obj.mk change as being anything but slightly more 
> > correct, so I wouldn't see a good reason to remove it either way.  I'm glad 
> > we've clarified the issue.
> > 
> I never said I want the commit to be backed out, did I?  ;)
> I even see it as a slight improvement, but for a reason that
> is different from what is in the commit log -- it saves one
> make(1) invocation.  I think that a null commit would be in
> order though.

I'm not sure how I missed seeing .MAKEFLAGS -- I just went with what mostly 
worked due to POLA ;-)  Thanks, ru; would you like to do the null commit 
clarification, or shall I?

-- 
Brian Fundakowski Feldman                           \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
  <> green@FreeBSD.org                               \  The Power to Serve! \
 Opinions expressed are my own.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\