Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 09:51:32 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za> To: mike@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Barcroft) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Standardized make options (or no doesn't always mean no) Message-ID: <200206090751.g597pWA90153@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20020608210159.B87326@espresso.q9media.com> from Mike Barcroft at "Jun 8, 2002 09:01:59 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is anyone planning to do something about the hugely confusing state of > NO/NO_ options? I can never remember which options have an underscore > after the NO, so I end up writing commands like > `make kernel ... NO_KERNELCLEAN=true NOKERNELCLEAN=true'. It would > very nice if we could standardize this and add some compatibility > shims for historical spellings. There were standards a long time ago, but just like some people like to ignore style(9), this was also ignored and we end up confused. :-( My vote would be for NOFOO (because that was the standard), but that is just my vote. And yes I think it is a good idea that we should have it standarized, but then I also think our code should conform to style(9). :-) John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org 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?200206090751.g597pWA90153>