Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:59:28 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: pjd@freebsd.org Cc: des@des.no, src-committers@freebsd.org, ume@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/tools/regression/lib/libc/resolv Makefile Message-ID: <20060308.085928.120042761.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20060308071705.GJ62485@garage.freebsd.pl> <86ek1dwfa6.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060308150647.GG737@garage.freebsd.pl>
Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:45:37AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
: +> Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: +> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:37:11AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
: +> > > > Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: +> > > > > Log:
: +> > > > > NOMAN --> NO_MAN
: +> > > > No, the correct spelling is
: +> > > > MAN=
: +> > Since when? I found 36 NO_MAN='s in my tree and none 'MAN='.
: +>
: +> 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...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060308.085928.120042761.imp>