Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:56:55 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: ru@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, jeremie@le-hen.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 Message-ID: <20051012.155655.133432645.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20051012192254.GE75270@ip.net.ua> References: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051012171227.GZ45070@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20051012192254.GE75270@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20051012192254.GE75270@ip.net.ua>
Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:12:27PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
: > Hi,
: >
: > > Modified files:
: > > usr.bin/make make.1
: > > 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.
: >
: > BTW, why is it named __MAKE_CONF and not MAKE_CONF ? Is it something
: > like scaring the user of using this it ?
: >
: To not pollute the namespace, I think.
Yes. That's why I named it the way I did. Speaking of which, since I
implemented it, why are people arguing with me about having a one
liner in make(1)? It is really annoying me that maybe I'd have some
perspective that would be relevant.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051012.155655.133432645.imp>