From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Aug 30 3:27:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (pike.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AB937B424 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jhb@localhost) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA50313; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:26:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb) From: John Baldwin Message-Id: <200008301026.DAA50313@pike.osd.bsdi.com> Subject: Re: NO vs NO_ In-Reply-To: <20000830125403.A76840@ark.cris.net> from Alexey Zelkin at "Aug 30, 2000 12:54:03 pm" To: Alexey Zelkin Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [ moved to -arch, the home of all bikeshed arguments ] Alexey Zelkin wrote: > hi, > > looks like it's time to rehash "NO vs NO_" theme. Any objections > against changing all occurences of "NO_*" variables in src/'s Makefiles > to "NO*" ? Since "NO*" variables is mostly used in tree I think we should > go in this way to avoid lots "empty" patches. The reason many of us have been adding NO_* instead of NO* is to improve readability. As someone else has pointed out, the NO_'s outnumber NO in make.conf anyways, so if you are going to make a change, go to NO_*. There is also a precedent for using _'s in make variables in other variable names as well: MAKE_KERBEROS4 MAKE_KERBEROS5 MACHINE_ARCH USA_RESIDENT MODULES_WITH_WORLD MAKE_IDEA etc. etc. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jobaldwi/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message