From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 9 20:03:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78D116A420; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:03:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE69D43D46; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:03:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k29K3IDa022647; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:03:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua> References: <200603090133.k291XcfB005631@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:03:17 -0500 To: Ruslan Ermilov , Warner Losh From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.3 Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.README X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:03:22 -0000 At 11:03 AM +0200 3/9/06, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >I can only suggest to make it spell "NO_MAN=", i.e., >without any value. > >Was there some discussion that I've missed? In the thread on: cvs commit: src/tools/regression/lib/libc/resolv Makefile des made the comment: "> > > No, the correct spelling is > > > MAN= > Since when? ... 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) " This is one of those issues that I have no personal opinion on, other than I wanted lpr's makefiles to be "correct", for whatever the consensus is for what "correct" means. I probably should have waited for more discussion in that thread before making this change, but I just happened to be looking over some code in 'lpr' when I read the above comment, so I thought "I might as well fix this as long as I'm right here...". -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu