Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:55:03 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304413 - head Message-ID: <505763F7.7080104@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50576222.90100@FreeBSD.org> References: <201209171722.q8HHMxH8058790@svn.freebsd.org> <50575D5F.5070300@FreeBSD.org> <50576222.90100@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/17/2012 10:47, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 12:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 09/17/2012 10:22, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> - Use 'make -C' here [2]
>>
>> The general consensus has been that 'make -C' is both a bit too clever,
>> and sometimes doesn't work. What's wrong with using the simple command
>> that is guaranteed to work?
>>
>> Doug
>>
>
> I argued the same for not having it originally. However, I've been told
> it only "did not work" in <=4.x.
>
> I've yet to have a problem with it, we use it all over the place in
> scripts, ie make -C /usr/ports... -V VAR, without issue.
>
> If it does not work, it should be fixed or removed.
You didn't answer my question.
What's wrong with using the simple command that is guaranteed to work?
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?505763F7.7080104>