Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:28:08 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?utf-8?Q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=) To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile Makefile.inc1 Message-ID: <867ir8kidz.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20070516124002.6g6ox6y28048ws4g@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Wed\, 16 May 2007 12\:40\:02 %2B0200") References: <200705160846.l4G8kaYr074481@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070516124002.6g6ox6y28048ws4g@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes:
> For the check-old target there's no reason to split up the targets, as
> you can list them unconditionally. For developing convenience I did
> chose to have the check-old-XXX targets in Makefile.inc1 ("make -f
> Makefile.inc1 TARGET" works just fine). I see no need to expose all
> targets.
I see no reason not to. The fact that they were not all exposed has
always confused me, I don't know how many times I've done 'make
check-old-libs' and been annoyed that it didn't work.
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?867ir8kidz.fsf>