From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 10 10:48:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9CC106566C; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:48:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-150-251.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0459A14F41C; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F34F5E3.5010303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:48:03 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120201 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <201202092044.q19KiLUT027539@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Eitan Adler Subject: Re: svn commit: r231298 - head/etc X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:48:04 -0000 On 02/09/2012 14:15, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> Author: eadler >> Date: Thu Feb 9 20:44:20 2012 >> New Revision: 231298 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/231298 >> >> Log: >> Make etc/Makefile more conflict resistant > > Nice. Question though: why not the less verbose > > BIN1 = \ > foo \ > bar \ > baz > > It's probably faster too, and friendlier when > running "make -dv" Just for fun I ran 'make INDEX' a bunch of times (which touches every category and subdir) the existing way, and after changing it from += to the same syntax as in src. There was no statistically significant difference in run time. Is there anything else that would be useful to test to see if there is a good reason to make this change in ports? Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/