Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:07:46 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, yar@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 Message-ID: <D270E32D-2636-4425-8C02-A88C3E6FD6DC@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20051012152710.GC75270@ip.net.ua> References: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051012.091330.53066886.imp@bsdimp.com> <20051012152710.GC75270@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:13:30AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> In message: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> >> Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> : yar 2005-10-12 10:09:36 UTC >> : >> : FreeBSD src repository >> : >> : Modified files: >> : usr.bin/make make.1 >> : Log: >> : __MAKE_CONF doesn't really belong here because it is >> : a FreeBSD extension of sys.mk. A xref to make.conf(5) >> : will be enough here. >> : >> : Requested by: ru >> >> I disagree. It is already hard enough to find info about =20 >> __MAKE_CONF, >> and since it is part of the base system, this seems like an =20 >> artificial >> distinction. >> >> > __MAKE_CONF doesn't fall under "make sets or knows about the following > internal variables or environment variables". Rather, it's a FreeBSD > specific feature, it doesn't have any direct connection to the make > utility (as well as CPUTYPE, CFLAGS, etc.). As such, it shouldn't > be documented in the make(1) manpage. OTOH, build(7) could benefit > from talking more about make.conf(5), while having __MAKE_CONF only > documented in make.conf(5) is fine. We really don't need any more > duplication. Note that sys.mk is inherently part of make(1). It follows logically that any feature added to sys.mk is therefore a feature of =06make(1) and should be documented in make(1). Since __MAKE_CONF defines which (if any) second-order configuration file gets included, by default /etc/make.conf, it's illogical to document it in make.conf(5). The __MAKE_CONF variable has no relation to what /etc/make.conf does. It's by virtue of __MAKE_CONF that make.conf(5) exists. --=20 Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D270E32D-2636-4425-8C02-A88C3E6FD6DC>