Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:19:37 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@des.no>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper <ngie@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r277737 - in head: etc/pam.d tools/build/mk Message-ID: <20150127071937.GB77865@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <F9F10CE5-3282-4BDF-AA65-9FF1F994412E@gmail.com> References: <201501260850.t0Q8oDna015719@svn.freebsd.org> <86fvax91cy.fsf@nine.des.no> <F9F10CE5-3282-4BDF-AA65-9FF1F994412E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 06:26:54PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Jan 26, 2015, at 4:23, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@des.no> wrote: > > Garrett Cooper <ngie@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> Log: > >> Honor MK_ACCT with etc/pam.d/atrun > > > > The correct idiom would be > > I disagree for a few reasons: [...] > 2. The likelihood of typos creeping into Makefiles is greater with the > _foo= idiom. > 3. It creates unnecessary local variables - especially when appending is > so easy to do. > 4. It's more difficult when backporting changes to do it with the variable > method - especially if context around the line modified has changed a > great deal. As someone who writes makefile daily I would agree, but there should be a reason why it was always done with _foo. One obvious one is that it shows up front all possible values, including conditional ones, which can also help not to forget something when backporting changes somewhere else. ;-) ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150127071937.GB77865>