Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:18:02 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf kmod.mk Message-ID: <200103271218.f2RCI2U51969@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> of "Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:55 -0800." <20010327035855.Y9431@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> [010327 03:55] wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:50:45AM -0800, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > ru 2001/03/27 03:50:45 PST
> > >
> > > Modified files:
> > > sys/conf kmod.mk
> > > Log:
> > > Reflect recent bsd.man.mk changes here, but do not assign the
> > > default MAN=${KMOD}.4 value for now. This feature was broken
> > > before, and enabling it now would cause 92 Makefiles to fail.
> > >
> > > Revision Changes Path
> > > 1.100 +9 -6 src/sys/conf/kmod.mk
> > >
> > Should I fix all these 92 Makefiles (they do not have NOMAN=) and
> > enable this feature, or should I drop the bsd.man.mk support from
> > kmod.mk completely? No module installs manpages for now.
>
> How about inverting the logic? meaning they must have a MAN= if
> they want pages installed?
I believe both NetBSD & OpenBSD have it the NOMAN way. It'd be nice
to be consistent (unless anyone has a particularly good reason for us
not to be).
> --
> -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
> Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103271218.f2RCI2U51969>