Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:53:10 -0700 From: John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> To: Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, pjd@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, des@des.no, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/tools/regression/lib/libc/resolv Makefile Message-ID: <17423.28262.332012.2331@gromit.timing.com> In-Reply-To: <p06230923c034d1eeb704@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20060308071705.GJ62485@garage.freebsd.pl> <86ek1dwfa6.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl> <20060308.085928.120042761.imp@bsdimp.com> <p06230923c034d1eeb704@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosehn wrote at 13:31 -0500 on Mar 8, 2006: > 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? Fix share/mk/bsd.README, too. It says that NO_MAN is a Makefile knob.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17423.28262.332012.2331>