Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:31:01 -0500 From: Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, pjd@FreeBSD.org Cc: des@des.no, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/tools/regression/lib/libc/resolv Makefile Message-ID: <p06230923c034d1eeb704@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20060308.085928.120042761.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060308071705.GJ62485@garage.freebsd.pl> <86ek1dwfa6.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl> <20060308.085928.120042761.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:59 AM -0700 3/8/06, M. Warner Losh wrote: >In message: <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl> > Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> writes: >: On Wed, Mar 08, 2006, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: >: +> >: +> Since we abandoned MAN[1-9]. The fact that many old Makefiles >: +> still use NO_MAN doesn't make it right; NO_MAN is a user knob, >: +> not a Makefile knob (same distinction as between WITH_FOO and >: +> USE_FOO in the ports tree). >: >: Fair enough. Maybe we should fix NO_MAN= uses, so it doesn't >: create confusion? > >Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Cut and paste copying >of bad examples is a big source of bogusness in our tree... If we fix this in some makefiles in -current, should we also (eventually) MFC the changes back into RELENG_6? Or is it only an issue for -current? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06230923c034d1eeb704>