Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:03:17 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.README Message-ID: <p0623092ac0363891c64c@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua> References: <200603090133.k291XcfB005631@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060309090307.GK54826@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0623092ac0363891c64c>