From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 1 01:21:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A8216A523; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:21:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2179243D6A; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:21:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k711Hebo033015; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:17:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:18:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20060731.191803.270754578.imp@bsdimp.com> To: marcel@xcllnt.net From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <8F70D2AC-029E-4829-A775-600D6AABE69E@xcllnt.net> References: <20060731163209.GB50797@comp.chem.msu.su> <8F70D2AC-029E-4829-A775-600D6AABE69E@xcllnt.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:17:40 -0600 (MDT) Cc: marcel@FreeBSD.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, ru@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/kldxref Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:21:47 -0000 In message: <8F70D2AC-029E-4829-A775-600D6AABE69E@xcllnt.net> Marcel Moolenaar writes: : I think the problem is inherent when the existence of the variable : counts and not its value. It's not intuitive and people use it in : different ways because of that. I personally like something simple : like SHARED=NO or SHARED=YES. The lack of definition then meaning : the default setting. This is trivially implemented with SHARED?=YES. : Anyway: that's just me... NO_SHARED=no has been a long-running joke around the office. However, going to a simple SHARED=?yes/no won't work either. It is inconsistant with the new world order. I'd expecte that MK_SHARED=yes/no would be the right thing to do, but there may be parse time issues that makes it hard to do this simple fix.. Warner