Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:05:09 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, yar@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 Message-ID: <20051012170509.GH99170@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20051012.104300.74694006.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051012.091330.53066886.imp@bsdimp.com> <20051012152710.GC75270@ip.net.ua> <20051012.104300.74694006.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--2e7L0d/MUbHEOUYO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:43:00AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:27:10 +0300 >=20 > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:13:30AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> > > > Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > : yar 2005-10-12 10:09:36 UTC > > > :=20 > > > : FreeBSD src repository > > > :=20 > > > : Modified files: > > > : usr.bin/make make.1=20 > > > : Log: > > > : __MAKE_CONF doesn't really belong here because it is > > > : a FreeBSD extension of sys.mk. A xref to make.conf(5) > > > : will be enough here. > > > : =20 > > > : Requested by: ru > > >=20 > > > I disagree. It is already hard enough to find info about __MAKE_CONF, > > > and since it is part of the base system, this seems like an artificial > > > distinction. > > >=20 > > __MAKE_CONF doesn't fall under "make sets or knows about the following > > internal variables or environment variables". Rather, it's a FreeBSD > > specific feature, it doesn't have any direct connection to the make > > utility (as well as CPUTYPE, CFLAGS, etc.). As such, it shouldn't > > be documented in the make(1) manpage. OTOH, build(7) could benefit > > from talking more about make.conf(5), while having __MAKE_CONF only > > documented in make.conf(5) is fine. We really don't need any more > > duplication. >=20 > I disagree. It is directly connected to the make(1) utility, just like > all the FreeBSD extentions we've added over the years for things like > 'expand this variable, and make it upper case'. Every single > invocation of make(1) will cause __MAKE_CONF to be evalutated, and > /etc/make.conf included if __MAKE_CONF isn't defined. It is very much > unlike CPUTYPE, CFLAGS, etc because of this. As such, it should be in > the make(1) man page. Every user of make potentially has to know > about it. It is a variable that we've made fundamental to our make > system, so it should be at least mentioned in make(1). There's no > harm in putting it make(1), and people absolutely will look there > first for this information. A simple xref to make.conf isn't > sufficient. It's more important than CPUTYPE, etc. for the reasons outlined above. Ceri --=20 Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.) --2e7L0d/MUbHEOUYO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDTUJFocfcwTS3JF8RAmjjAKChgUmoqHuo6kF46YA3QwbX1KDCEwCeM/9N ce3Sg6Pfq1EFJne13N9M+Dw= =KQu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2e7L0d/MUbHEOUYO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051012170509.GH99170>