From owner-freebsd-current Sun Apr 21 18:02:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA27250 for current-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA27244 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07674; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:02:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:02:03 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199604220102.TAA07674@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What do folks think of the following patch? In-Reply-To: <199604212353.QAA06576@time.cdrom.com> References: <199604212353.QAA06576@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > It seems like world, update, all and install should be targets which > include an optional sub-make in /etc/Makefile for the corresponding > target (only the diff to world: is shown here). This would give us > a nice way of doing site-specific stuff which is preserved across changes > to /usr/src/Makefile. Since both /etc/make.conf and /usr/src/Makefile are generated by us, what does adding it in the tree vs. having them add buy us? In either case, the end-user has to edit the files. (I'm not against the idea, but I don't see any purpose for it.) nate