Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:05:18 -0700
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: make.conf 
Message-ID:  <23125.904352718@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:40:43 PDT." <199808290040.RAA20897@apollo.backplane.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>     Well, if we can't come to a consensus for something as trivial and
>     simple as make.conf, I don't hold out much hope being able to submit

It's an inverse law.  Your chances of getting consensus for something
as trivial and simple as make.conf are about equivalent to your
chances of completing a marathon using only your tongue for
propulsion.  Commit the scariest possible fix to the VM system, on the
other hand, and you might be lucky to get one comment on it (not that
I recommend you test this out, but believe me - it's true! :-).

>     Frankly, I don't see why people are so vapid about simply checking for
>     a make.conf.local.  I would like to do that and go on to other more

The make.conf.local idea *I* personally have no objection to, though
removing make.conf as you were suggesting before is probably Not On.
Bruce will and probably did object to that one, but then Bruce objects
to everything and thus can usually be ignored in these areas since
it's sort of like the U.S. Government stamping everything "Top Secret"
back in the 80's - you do something too often and the very concept
loses a lot of its meaning. :-)

- Jordan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23125.904352718>